Advertisement

Thrombolytic therapy

NEW YORK, August 7 (Praxis Press) Thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction is equally effective when delivered as a bolus injection and as a 60 to 90-minute infusion; however, the relative safety of these two delivery methods is unknown. Using meta-analysis, Mehta and colleagues studied the risk of intracranial hemorrhage in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy as a bolus or as an infusion. The analysis included seven randomized trials with a total of 103,972 patients. The risk of

August 8, 2000

NEW YORK, August 7 (Praxis Press) Thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction is equally effective when delivered as a bolus injection and as a 60 to 90-minute infusion; however, the relative safety of these two delivery methods is unknown. Using meta-analysis, Mehta and colleagues studied the risk of intracranial hemorrhage in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy as a bolus or as an infusion. The analysis included seven randomized trials with a total of 103,972 patients. The risk of intracranial hemorrhage was higher in patients receiving boluses relative to patients receiving infusions (odds ratio, 1.25; p = 0.003); this difference was most marked when the same drug was administered by bolus or infusion (odds ratio, 1.75; p = 0.0001). However, differences also existed when newer-generation bolus drugs (reteplase, lanoteplase, and tenecteplase) were compared with standard infusion drugs (alteplase and streptokinase) (odds ratio, 1.25, p = 0.02). In contrast, rates of nonhemorrhagic stroke, 30-day mortality, and reinfarction were similar for both delivery methods. Bolus thrombolytic therapy is more convenient, but is associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Popular Now

  1. Opinion: Too Many Mitochondrial Genome Papers
  2. Neanderthal-Human Hybrid Unearthed
  3. Sex Differences in Pain Pathway
  4. Antibiotics and the Gut Microbiome
Advertisement
Eppendorf
Eppendorf
Advertisement
The Scientist