 |
|
COMMENTS AND OPINIONS
Better Outcome of Myocardial Infarction in Hospitals With PCI Facilities—Is It Because of More PCIs?—Reply
Jose Labarere, MD;
Loic Belle, MD;
Nicolas Danchin, MD
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In reply
Van Brabandt and Vrijens and Yan and colleagues suggest that the differences in outcomes for patients admitted to hospitals with vs without PCI facilities in the Unité de Soins Intensifs Coronaires (USIC) 2000 study1 can be explained by different rates of reperfusion therapy (primary PCI or thrombolysis) rather than PCI within 48 hours of admission. Actually, identifying the individual effects of reperfusion therapy, primary PCI, and PCI within 48 hours of admission on 1-year survival is challenging because of the high degree of correlation between these variables.
Logically, the higher rate of reperfusion therapy for patients in PCI hospitals (58% vs 40%) was mainly driven by a greater use of primary PCI (36% vs 1%) in this setting. The nonavailability of PCI was not fully compensated for by the use of thrombolysis in non-PCI hospitals. Because of the risk . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
RELATED LETTER
Better Outcome of Myocardial Infarction in Hospitals With PCI Facilities—Is It Because of More PCIs?
Andrew T. Yan, Raymond T. Yan, and Shaun G. Goodman
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(2):240.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
Outcomes of Myocardial Infarction in Hospitals With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Facilities
Jose Labarere, Loic Belle, Magali Fourny, Nathalie Genès, Jean-Marc Lablanche, Didier Blanchard, Jean-Pierre Cambou, Nicolas Danchin, and for the Unité de Soins Intensifs Coronaires 2000 Investigators
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(9):913-920.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
