English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

d s s n i t p Several randomized clinical trials1--5 and meta-analyses6 have shown that primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is superior to fibrinolysis in reducing mortality, reinfarction and stroke following myocardial infarction (MI). The success rate of mechanical reperfusion is over 90%, much higher than fibrinolysis (around 50%). In countries or regions where fibrinolysis has been replaced by PPCI, mortality after MI has decreased sharply.7 This does not mean that there is no longer any role for fibrinolysis, particularly in remote areas where PPCI is not readily available. A pooled analysis of the CAPTIM and WEST trials showed that patients treated by pre-hospital fibrinolysis in the first two hours after symptom onset may in fact have significantly lower mortality than those with PPCI.8 The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on myocardial revascularization state that PPCI is recommended not only for patients admitted directly to a hospital with interventional cardiology facilities but also for those who can be transferred to one within two hours.9 When fibrinolysis has been used first but was unsuccessful,

Projeto Algarve: a região mais próxima dos objetivos da iniciativa Stent for Life