title: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: does the choice of fibrinolytic agent impact on the importance of time-to-treatment?
abstract: The mortality benefit associated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction may be lost if door-to-balloon time is delayed by >1 hour compared with tissue plasminogen activator therapy door-to-needle time. When a substantial delay in initiating primary PCI is likely, reperfusion therapy with second- or third-generation fibrinolytic agents should be strongly considered.
authors.affiliation: Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0366, USA.
authors.forename: Brahmajee K
authors.initials: BK
authors.lastname: Nallamothu
authors.forename: Elliott M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Antman
authors.forename: Eric R
authors.initials: ER
authors.lastname: Bates
mesh_terms: D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary; D006801:Humans; D009203:Myocardial Infarction / Q000628:therapy*; D015912:Thrombolytic Therapy; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome