This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Revascularization  • Thrombolysis  • Cardiovascular System  • Surgery  • Surgical Interventions  • Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Cardiovascular Intervention  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	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 Stenestrand and colleagues¹ reported that in the Registry of Information and Knowledge about Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admissions (RIKS-HIA), PCI compared with thrombolytic therapy was independently associated with lower short-term and long-term mortality rates in patients with STEMI. We agree that registry data from unselected patient populations provide valuable insights into management patterns and treatment effectiveness in the "real world." However, several issues deserve further comment.

As the authors noted, the choice of reperfusion strategy was predominantly influenced by the local availability of treatment facilities rather than individual patient characteristics. For example, prehospital thrombolysis was available in about half of the participating hospitals and not all centers performed PCI. Although the multivariable analysis and propensity score included the hospital type and on-site availability of cardiac catheterization facilities, hierarchical modeling may yield more reliable results given the clustering of patients within hospitals and geographic regions.^2-3

The conclusion . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Andrew T. Yan, MD; Raymond T. Yan, MD; Shaun G. Goodman, MD, MSc
goodmans@smh.toronto.on.ca
St. Michael's Hospital
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTERS

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Thrombolysis for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Charanjit S. Rihal, Allan S. Jaffe, David R. Holmes, Jr, Henry H. Ting, Bernard J. Gersh, and Malcolm R. Bell
JAMA. 2007;297(12):1313.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Thrombolysis for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Jacek Legutko, Zbigniew Siudak, Dariusz Dudek, and Lukasz Rzeszutko
JAMA. 2007;297(12):1314.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Thrombolysis for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction—Reply
Ulf Stenestrand, Johan Lindbäck, and Lars Wallentin
JAMA. 2007;297(12):1314-1315.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

Long-term Outcome of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Prehospital and In-Hospital Thrombolysis for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Ulf Stenestrand, Johan Lindbäck, Lars Wallentin, and for the RIKS-HIA Registry
JAMA. 2006;296(14):1749-1756.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT