Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty compared to thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction

ea relative risk 0·58, 95 % confidence intervals 0·44–0·76). With respect to safety, stroke was reduced from 2·0% with thrombolysis to 0·7 % with angioplasty (relative primary angioplasty, this treatment is now preferred when logistics allow this approach. As has been shown for angioplasty for stable and unstable angina[9], it is likely that the results of primaryrisk 0·35, 95 % confidence intervals 0·14–0·77). How-ever, considerable uncertainty existed about the long-term relative merits of these two approaches. We recently published long-term follow-up data of 395 patients randomly assigned to treatment with angioplasty or intravenous streptokinase[3]. Clinical information was collected for a mean (SD) of 52 years, and medical charges were compared. A total of 194 patients were assigned to undergo angioplasty angioplasty will be, in part, dependent on the setting in which it is performed, and therefore the results from various hospitals may differ considerably[2,10]. Establishing and maintaining a proficient primary angioplasty programme takes considerable institu-tional will and effort[11,12]. Many patients with acute myocardial infarction are admitted to hospitals with-out angioplasty facilities, necessitating additional transportation to an interventional catheterizationEuropean Heart Journal (2000) 21, 1487–1489 doi:10.1053/euhj.2000.2192, available online a