HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Ratcliffe, A T Articles by Pepper, C PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ratcliffe, A T Articles by Pepper, C

Thrombolysis or primary angioplasty? Reperfusion therapy for myocardial infarction in the UK

¹ University of Leeds Medical School, Leeds, UK
² Department of Cardiology, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK

Correspondence to:
Dr C Pepper, Department of Cardiology, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK; Chris.pepper{at}leedsth.nhs.uk

ABSTRACT
Intravenous thrombolysis and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are alternative treatment options for coronary reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction. Recent trials and meta-analyses have produced increasing evidence that primary coronary intervention produces better long-term outcomes for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Most of these studies, however, were performed in US or European healthcare systems and may not be directly transferable to an NHS setting. The widespread introduction of primary PCI would have major implications for the organisation of healthcare provision within the UK. An alternative to PCI that may produce similar outcomes at a reduced cost might be early (pre-hospital) administration of thrombolysis. In an era of unprecedented financial attention, the importance of interventions that are simultaneously beneficial to the patient and economical to the NHS has never been more important. The evidence base for primary PCI and its possible use in the NHS are discussed.