This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) View Cardiosource Journal Scan Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Terkelsen, C. J. Articles by Nielsen, T. T. PubMed Articles by Terkelsen, C. J. Articles by Nielsen, T. T. Related Collections Related Article

VIEWPOINT AND COMMENTARY

Is There Any Time Left for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention According to the 2007 Updated American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Guidelines and the D2B Alliance?

Department of Cardiology B, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

Manuscript received March 26, 2008; revised manuscript received May 13, 2008, accepted May 19, 2008.

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Christian J. Terkelsen, Department of Cardiology B, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmark (Email: Christian_Juhl_Terkelsen{at}hotmail.com).

Early reperfusion therapy is essential in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Fibrinolytic therapy is a feasible reperfusion strategy to be initiated at any hospital and preferably in the pre-hospital phase. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is acknowledged as a superior reperfusion strategy when initiated in a timely fashion. It is also the preferred reperfusion therapy in patients who exhibit cardiogenic shock and in patients with contraindications to fibrinolysis. However, in many regions, it is difficult to establish a successful PPCI strategy because it mandates optimal pre-hospital and in-hospital triage to ensure acceptable treatment delays. The 2007 updated American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Guidelines stress that "the focus for PPCI is from first medical contact because in regionalization strategies, extra time may be taken to transport patients to a center that performs the procedure" and that "time from Emergency Medical Services arrival to balloon inflation should be <90 minutes." When considering fibrinolysis, however, the guidelines accept a door-to-needle time of 30 min from arrival at the local hospital. Is there evidence to justify that, in the PPCI setting, the clock starts ticking upon the arrival of the Emergency Medical Services but, in the setting of in-hospital fibrinolysis, it does not start until a patient's arrival at the local hospital?

Key Words: myocardial infarction • primary percutaneous coronary intervention • percutaneous coronary intervention-related delay • fibrinolysis • guidelines

Abbreviations and Acronyms   D2B = door-to-balloon   EMS = Emergency Medical Services   PCI-related delay = extra treatment delay when performing primary percutaneous coronary intervention instead of fibrinolysis   PPCI = primary percutaneous coronary intervention   STEMI = ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Related Article

Inside This Issue of JACC
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008 52: A32. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. M. Antman Time Is Muscle: Translation Into Practice J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 7, 2008; 52(15): 1216 - 1221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]