Abstract
We commend Kahn and colleagues for publishing their data on the pre‐hospital use of fibrinolysis and showing that the outcomes were similar to those treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, we noted that the median first medical contact to device time for those receiving primary PCI was 130 minutes, and indeed > 75% of patients had longer than the 90 minutes recommended in the recent National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand guidelines.2 Although there is still some uncertainty about acceptable time delays to PCI, these data suggest that even more individuals should be receiving pre‐hospital thrombolysis. As an alternative, perhaps patients should be randomised in clinical trials that address the relative usefulness of these two reperfusion strategies in circumstances of likely moderately prolonged times to primary PCI. Moreover, among those patients undergoing pharmaco‐invasive PCI, the dose of the fibrinolytic drugs used requires definition.3
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 369 |
Number of pages | 1 |
Journal | Medical Journal of Australia |
Volume | 206 |
Issue number | 8 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 May 2017 |
Keywords
- Letter to editor
- myocardial infarction
- regional Australia