You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 288 No. 18, November 13, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA

Thrombolytic Therapy vs Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Aversano and colleagues1 found that primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) resulted in better outcomes than thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). We are concerned that the results may be confounded by medications likely to modify the outcome. In particular, it would be helpful to know the proportions of patients who actually received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, other platelet function inhibitors, low-molecular-weight heparin, {beta}-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Christoph Pechlaner, MD; Romuald Bellmann, MD
Innsbruck University Hospital
Innsbruck, Austria

1. Aversano T, Aversano LT, Passamani E, et al for the Atlantic Cardiovascular Patient Outcomes Research Team (C-PORT). Thrombolytic therapy vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction in patients presenting to hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;287:1943-1951. FREE FULL TEXT


To the Editor: We have several concerns about the study by Dr Aversano and colleagues.1 First, the study was only single-blind. Because of the nature of the randomized groups, follow-up and management of patients with primary PCI could lead to unrecognized bias introduced into the study in the form of preferential management of PCI patients. This potential bias could have been minimized if enrolled . . . [Full Text of this Article]


RELATED ARTICLES

Thrombolytic Therapy vs Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Myocardial Infarction in Patients Presenting to Hospitals Without On-site Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Thomas Aversano, Lynnet T. Aversano, Eugene Passamani, Genell L. Knatterud, Michael L. Terrin, David O. Williams, Sandra A. Forman, and for the Atlantic Cardiovascular Patient Outcomes Research Team
JAMA. 2002;287(15):1943-1951.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for All?
Christopher P. Cannon
JAMA. 2002;287(15):1987-1989.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2002 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.