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/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

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

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

To the Editor: The importance of time to reperfusion among patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy has been firmly established. Recent data suggest that time to reperfusion is a critical determinant of outcome with direct angioplasty as well.1 The primary reason balloon angioplasty has been associated with a better outcome than thrombolytic therapy in nearly all comparative randomized trials is likely that it can achieve reperfusion more rapidly in a greater number of patients.2 3 It was with considerable surprise, therefore, that I read the registry report by Danchin et al4 in which they reported that, contrary to the results of randomized trials, the outcomes of patients receiving thrombolysis and primary angioplasty in the “real world” were similar.Danchin et al’s4 study has 2 important shortcomings. First, the authors did not, in fact, perform “primary coronary angioplasty” because they included patients admitted up to 6 hours after the onset of symptoms and then performed angioplasty up to 24 hours after hospital admission. Direct coronary angioplasty refers specifically to angioplasty performed early during an infarction in patients with persistent pain …

Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction by Primary Coronary Angioplasty or Intravenous Thrombolysis