Is the 90-Minute Gold Standard an Unreachable Chimera?
From the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor. Correspondence to Kim A. Eagle, MD, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, 300 N Ingalls, 8B02, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0477. E-mail keagle{at}umich.edu’ + u + ‘@’ + d + ”//–> Key Words: Editorials myocardial infarction reperfusion stents survival Over the past decade, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as an effective treatment strategy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Compared with thrombolytic therapy, the benefits of primary PCI include a reduction in the frequency of total stroke and hemorrhagic stroke, a reduction in the frequency of reinfarction, and an increase in the frequency of infarct-related artery patency, resulting in improved in-hospital and long-term survival.1 In addition, the availability of primary PCI provides a valid alternative for patients who have contraindications to thrombolytic therapy.
