1992PubMedRequires access

[Use of thrombolysis for myocardial infarction in Israel].

S. Behar

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

Thrombolysis is generally accepted as the initial treatment for acute myocardial infarction. The extent to which this therapy is being implemented in Israel and the reasons for exclusion of cases from thrombolytic therapy were prospectively investigated. 413 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction hospitalized during January 1990 in 18 of Israel's 25 coronary care units were studied. Thrombolytic therapy was administered to 145 patients (35%: 38% of the men and 29% of the women; NS). It was used more often in those up to the age of 75 (38%) than in those over (18%, p less than 0.005) and in those with a first or anterior infarction (40% and 48%, respectively) than those with recurrent or inferior infarction (23% and 31%, respectively; p less than 0.005 for both). The 2 most frequent reasons for not using thrombolysis were late arrival in the coronary care unit (33%) and absence of ST elevation on the admission electrocardiogram (28%). Hospital mortality was 6% in the thrombolytic group versus 20% in those ineligible for thrombolysis. The significance of this difference is not clear as there was no randomization to treatment.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Thrombolysis is generally accepted as the initial treatment for acute myocardial infarction. The extent to which this therapy is being implemented in Israel and the reasons for exclusion of cases from thrombolytic therapy were prospectively investigated. 413 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction hospitalized during January 1990 in 18 of Israel's 25 coronary care units were studied. Thrombolytic therapy was administered to 145 patients (35%: 38% of the men and 29% of the women; NS). It was used more often in those up to the age of 75 (38%) than in those over (18%, p less than 0.005) and in those with a first or anterior infarction (40% and 48%, respectively) than those with recurrent or inferior infarction (23% and 31%, respectively; p less than 0.005 for both). The 2 most frequent reasons for not using thrombolysis were late arrival in the coronary care unit (33%) and absence of ST elevation on the admission electrocardiogram (28%). Hospital mortality was 6% in the thrombolytic group versus 20% in those ineligible for thrombolysis. The significance of this difference is not clear as there was no randomization to treatment.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Thrombolysis is generally accepted as the initial treatment for acute myocardial infarction. The extent to which this therapy is being implemented in Israel and the reasons for exclusion of cases from thrombolytic therapy were prospectively investigated. 413 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction hospitalized during January 1990 in 18 of Israel's 25 coronary care units were studied. Thrombolytic therapy was administered to 145 patients (35%: 38% of the men and 29% of the women; NS). It was used more often in those up to the age of 75 (38%) than in those over (18%, p less than 0.005) and in those with a first or anterior infarction (40% and 48%, respectively) than those with recurrent or inferior infarction (23% and 31%, respectively; p less than 0.005 for both). The 2 most frequent reasons for not using thrombolysis were late arrival in the coronary care unit (33%) and absence of ST elevation on the admission electrocardiogram (28%). Hospital mortality was 6% in the thrombolytic group versus 20% in those ineligible for thrombolysis. The significance of this difference is not clear as there was no randomization to treatment.

Key concepts: Medicine, Thrombolysis, Myocardial infarction, Coronary care unit, Cardiology, Internal medicine, Randomization, Infarction

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Use of thrombolysis for myocardial infarction in Israel]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens