Читать книгу Interventional Cardiology - Группа авторов - Страница 331

1 1 Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. The Lancet 2003; 361:13–20.

2 2 Boersma E. Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in‐hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J 2006; 27:779–88.

3 3 Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST‐segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST‐segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2018; 39:119–77.

4 4 O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction, A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2013; 127:e362–425.

5 5 Knot J, Widimsky P, Wijns William, et al. How to set up an effective national primary angioplasty network: lessons learned from five European countries. EuroIntervention 2009; 5:299–309.

6 6 Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. The Lancet 2011; 377:1409–20.

7 7 Romagnoli E, Biondi‐Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A, et al. Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE‐STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST‐Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60:2481–9.

8 8 Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. The Lancet 2015; 385:2465–76.

9 9 Svilaas Tone, Vlaar Pieter J., van der Horst Iwan C., et al. Thrombus Aspiration during Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:557–67.

10 10 Vlaar PJ, Svilaas T, van der Horst IC, et al. Cardiac death and reinfarction after 1 year in the Thrombus Aspiration during Percutaneous coronary intervention in Acute myocardial infarction Study (TAPAS): a 1‐year follow‐up study. The Lancet 2008; 371:1915–20.

11 11 Fröbert O, Lagerqvist B, Olivecrona GK, et al. Thrombus aspiration during ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1587–97.

12 12 Lagerqvist B, Fröbert O, Olivecrona GK, et al. Outcomes 1 year after thrombus aspiration for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:1111–20.

13 13 Jolly SS, Cairns JA, Yusuf S, et al. Randomized trial of primary PCI with or without routine manual thrombectomy. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:1389–98.

14 14 Jolly SS, James S, Džavík V, et al. Thrombus Aspiration in ST‐Segment‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Individual Patient Meta‐Analysis: Thrombectomy Trialists Collaboration. Circulation 2017; 135:143–52.

15 15 Ali A, Cox D, Dib N, et al. Rheolytic thrombectomy with percutaneous coronary intervention for infarct size reduction in acute myocardial infarction: 30‐day results from a multicenter randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48:244–52.

16 16 Kaltoft A, Bøttcher M, Nielsen SS, et al. Routine thrombectomy in percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST‐segment‐elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized, controlled trial. Circulation 2006; 114:40–7.

17 17 Migliorini A, Stabile A, Rodriguez AE, et al. Comparison of AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy before direct infarct artery stenting with direct stenting alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The JETSTENT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:1298–306.

18 18 Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67:1235–50.

19 19 Nordmann AJ, Hengstler P, Harr T, et al.Clinical outcomes of primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in patients with myocardial infarction: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med 2004; 116:253–62.

20 20 Stone GW, Grines CL, Cox DA, et al. Comparison of angioplasty with stenting, with or without abciximab, in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:957–66.

21 21 Kastrati A, Dibra A, Spaulding C, et al. Meta‐analysis of randomized trials on drug‐eluting stents vs bare‐metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2007; 28:2706–13.

22 22 Neumann F‐J, Sousa‐Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019; 40:87–165.

23 23 Sorrentino S, Giustino G, Mehran R, et al. Everolimus‐Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus‐Eluting Metallic Stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69:3055–66.

24 24 Montone RA, Niccoli G, Marco F de, et al. Temporal Trends in Adverse Events After Everolimus‐Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Everolimus‐Eluting Metallic Stent Implantation: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Circulation 2017; 135:2145–54.

25 25 Byrne RA, Alfonso F, Schneider S, et al. Prospective, randomized trial of bioresorbable scaffolds vs everolimus‐eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary stenting for myocardial infarction: the Intracoronary Scaffold Assessment a Randomized evaluation of Absorb in Myocardial Infarction (ISAR‐Absorb MI) trial. Eur Heart J 2019; 40:167–76.

26 26 Park D‐W, Clare RM, Schulte PJ, et al. Extent, location, and clinical significance of non‐infarct‐related coronary artery disease among patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA 2014; 312:2019–27.

27 27 Sorajja P, Gersh BJ, Cox DA, et al. Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2007; 28:1709–16.

28 28 van der Schaaf RJ, Timmer JR, Ottervanger JP, et al. Long‐term impact of multivessel disease on cause‐specific mortality after ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion therapy. Heart 2006; 92:1760–3.

29 29 Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald NJ, et al. Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1115–23.

30 30 Gershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ, et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion‐only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65:963–72.

31 31 Gershlick AH, Banning AS, Parker E, et al. Long‐Term Follow‐Up of Complete Versus Lesion‐Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: The CvLPRIT Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:3083–94.

32 32 Engstrøm T, Kelbæk H, Helqvist S, et al. Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI‐3—PRIMULTI): an open‐label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2015; 386:665–71.

33 33 Smits PC, Abdel‐Wahab M, Neumann F‐J, et al. Fractional Flow Reserve‐Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:1234–44.

34 34 Mehta SR, Wood DA, Storey RF, et al. Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med 2019; 381:1411–21.

35 35 Pasceri V, Patti G, Pelliccia F, et al. Complete Revascularization During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reduces Death and Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Multivessel Disease: Meta‐Analysis and Meta‐Regression of Randomized Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11:833–43.

36 36 Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early Revascularization in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:625–34.

37 37 Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, White HD, et al. One‐year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2001; 285:190–2.

38 38 Hochman JS, Sleeper Lynn A., Webb John G., et al. Early Revascularization and Long‐term Survival in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. JAMA 2006; 295:2511–5.

39 39 Thiele H, Desch S, Piek JJ, et al. Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous revascularization plus potential staged revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Design and rationale of CULPRIT‐SHOCK trial. Am Heart J 2016; 172:160–9.

40 40 Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 2017; 377:2419–32.

41 41 Montalescot G, Sideris G, Meuleman C, et al. A randomized comparison of high clopidogrel loading doses in patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: the ALBION (Assessment of the Best Loading Dose of Clopidogrel to Blunt Platelet Activation, Inflammation and Ongoing Necrosis) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48:931–8.

42 42 Wiviott SD, Antman EM, Gibson CM, et al. Evaluation of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes: design and rationale for the TRial to assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by optimizing platelet InhibitioN with prasugrel Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 38 (TRITON‐TIMI 38). Am Heart J 2006; 152:627–35.

43 43 Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:2001–15.

44 44 Savonitto S, Ferri LA, Piatti L, et al. Comparison of Reduced‐Dose Prasugrel and Standard‐Dose Clopidogrel in Elderly Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Early Percutaneous Revascularization. Circulation 2018; 137:2435–45.

45 45 Pepe M, Cafaro A, Paradies V, et al. Time‐dependent benefits of pre‐treatment with new oral P2Y12 ‐inhibitors in patients addressed to primary PCI for acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 93:592–601.

46 46 Gargiulo G, Esposito G, Avvedimento M, et al. Cangrelor, Tirofiban, and Chewed or Standard Prasugrel Regimens in Patients With ST‐Segment‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Primary Results of the FABOLUS‐FASTER Trial. Circulation 2020; 142:441–54.

47 47 Vlachojannis GJ, Vogel RF, Wilschut JM, et al. COMPARison of pre‐hospital CRUSHed vs uncrushed Prasugrel tablets in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary interventions: Rationale and design of the COMPARE CRUSH trial. Am Heart J 2020; 224:10–6.

48 48 Vlachojannis GJ, Wilschut JM, Vogel RF, et al. Effect of Pre‐Hospital Crushed Prasugrel Tablets in Patients with STEMI Planned for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Randomized COMPARE CRUSH Trial. Circulation 2020, Oct 14.

49 49 Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:1045–57.

50 50 Montalescot G, van 't Hof AW, Lapostolle F, et al. Prehospital ticagrelor in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:1016–27.

51 51 Koul S, Smith JG, Götberg M, et al. No Benefit of Ticagrelor Pretreatment Compared With Treatment During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST‐Segment‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11:e005528.

52 52 Motovska Z, Hlinomaz O, Miklik R, et al. Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE‐18 Study. Circulation 2016; 134:1603–12.

53 53 Schüpke S, Neumann F‐J, Menichelli M, et al. Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2019; 381:1524–34.

54 54 Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA Guideline Focused Update on Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, 2012 ACC/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease, 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction, 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non‐ST‐Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes, and 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery. Circulation 2016; 134:e123‐55.

55 55 Hahn J‐Y, Song YB, Oh J‐H, et al. 6‐month versus 12‐month or longer dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (SMART‐DATE): a randomised, open‐label, non‐inferiority trial. The Lancet 2018; 391:1274–84.

56 56 Kedhi E, Fabris E, van der Ent M, et al. Six months versus 12 months dual antiplatelet therapy after drug‐eluting stent implantation in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (DAPT‐STEMI): randomised, multicentre, non‐inferiority trial. BMJ 2018; 363:k3793.

57 57 Luca G de, Damen SA, Camaro C, et al. Final results of the randomised evaluation of short‐term dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with a new‐generation stent (REDUCE trial). EuroIntervention 2019; 15:e990–e998.

58 58 Kim B‐K, Hong S‐J, Cho Y‐H, et al. Effect of Ticagrelor Monotherapy vs Ticagrelor With Aspirin on Major Bleeding and Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: The TICO Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2020; 323:2407–16.

59 59 Mehran R, Baber U, Sharma SK, et al. Ticagrelor with or without Aspirin in High‐Risk Patients after PCI. N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2032–42.

60 60 Khan SU, Singh M, Valavoor S, et al. Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Drug‐Eluting Stents: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis. Circulation 2020; 142:1425–36.

61 61 Angiolillo DJ, Schneider DJ, Bhatt DL, et al. Pharmacodynamic effects of cangrelor and clopidogrel: the platelet function substudy from the cangrelor versus standard therapy to achieve optimal management of platelet inhibition (CHAMPION) trials. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2012; 34:44–55.

62 62 Bhatt DL, Stone GW, Mahaffey KW, et al. Effect of platelet inhibition with cangrelor during PCI on ischemic events. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:1303–13.

63 63 Bhatt DL, Lincoff AM, Gibson CM, et al. Intravenous platelet blockade with cangrelor during PCI. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:2330–41.

64 64 Harrington RA, Stone GW, McNulty S, et al. Platelet inhibition with cangrelor in patients undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:2318–29.

65 65 Franchi F, Rollini F, Rivas A, et al. Platelet Inhibition With Cangrelor and Crushed Ticagrelor in Patients With ST‐Segment‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Circulation 2019; 139:1661–70.

66 66 Grimfjärd P, Lagerqvist B, Erlinge D, et al. Clinical use of cangrelor: nationwide experience from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2019; 5:151–7.

67 67 Ubaid S, Ford TJ, Berry C, et al. Cangrelor versus Ticagrelor in Patients Treated with Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Impact on Platelet Activity, Myocardial Microvascular Function and Infarct Size: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Thromb Haemost 2019; 119:1171–81.

68 68 Zeymer U, Wienbergen H. A review of clinical trials with eptifibatide in cardiology. Cardiovasc Drug Rev 2007; 25:301–15.

69 69 Luca G de, Suryapranata H, Stone GW, et al. Abciximab as adjunctive therapy to reperfusion in acute ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta‐analysis of randomized trials. JAMA 2005; 293:1759–65.

70 70 Montalescot G, Antoniucci D, Kastrati A, et al. Abciximab in primary coronary stenting of ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: a European meta‐analysis on individual patients' data with long‐term follow‐up. Eur Heart J 2007; 28:443–9.

71 71 Ellis SG, Tendera M, Belder MA de, et al. Facilitated PCI in patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2205–17.

72 72 van't Hof AWJ, Berg J ten, Heestermans T, et al. Prehospital initiation of tirofiban in patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty (On‐TIME 2): a multicentre, double‐blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2008; 372:537–46.

73 73 Berg JM ten, van 't Hof AWJ, Dill T, et al. Effect of early, pre‐hospital initiation of high bolus dose tirofiban in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction on short‐ and long‐term clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55:2446–55.

74 74 Dannenberg L, Wolff G, Naguib D, et al. Safety and efficacy of Tirofiban in STEMI‐patients. Int J Cardiol 2019; 274:35–9.

75 75 Zhang Z, Li W, Wu W, et al. Myokardreperfusion mit Tirofibaninjektion via Aspirationskatheter: Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit bei STEMI‐Patienten mit hoher Thrombuslast [Myocardial reperfusion with tirofiban injection via aspiration catheter: Efficacy and safety in STEMI patients with large thrombus burden]. Herz 2020; 45:280–7.

76 76 Gibson CM, Kirtane AJ, Murphy SA, et al. Early initiation of eptifibatide in the emergency department before primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the Time to Integrilin Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TITAN)‐TIMI 34 trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:668–75.

77 77 Zeymer U, Margenet A, Haude M, et al. Randomized comparison of eptifibatide versus abciximab in primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the EVA‐AMI Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:463–9.

78 78 Akerblom A, James SK, Koutouzis M, et al. Eptifibatide is noninferior to abciximab in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry). J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:470–5.

79 79 Savonitto S, De Luca G, Goldstein P, et al. Antithrombotic therapy before, during and after emergency angioplasty for ST elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2017; 6:173–90.

80 80 Schulz S, Richardt G, Laugwitz K‐L, et al. Prasugrel plus bivalirudin vs clopidogrel plus heparin in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2014; 35:2285–94.

81 81 Erlinge D, Omerovic E, Fröbert O, et al. Bivalirudin versus Heparin Monotherapy in Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1132–42.

82 82 Shah R, Jovin IS, Chaudhry A, et al. Safety and efficacy of switching from unfractionated heparin to bivalirudin during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 93:241–7.

83 83 Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, et al. Heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor versus bivalirudin monotherapy and paclitaxel‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents in acute myocardial infarction (HORIZONS‐AMI): final 3‐year results from a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2011; 377:2193–204.

84 84 Stone GW, Clayton T, Deliargyris EN, et al. Reduction in cardiac mortality with bivalirudin in patients with and without major bleeding: The HORIZONS‐AMI trial (Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63:15–20.

85 85 Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, et al. Bivalirudin during primary PCI in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2218–30.

86 86 Steg PG, van 't Hof A, Hamm CW, et al. Bivalirudin started during emergency transport for primary PCI. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:2207–17.

87 87 Dauerman HL, Frederick PD, Miller D, French WJ. Current incidence and clinical outcomes of bivalirudin administration among patients undergoing primary coronary intervention for stent thrombosis elevation acute myocardial infarction. Coron Artery Dis 2007; 18:141–8.

88 88 Shahzad A, Kemp I, Mars C, et al. Unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (HEAT‐PPCI): an open‐label, single centre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2014; 384:1849–58.

89 89 Han Y, Guo J, Zheng Y, et al. Bivalirudin vs heparin with or without tirofiban during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction: the BRIGHT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015; 313:1336–46.

90 90 Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, et al. Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:997–1009.

91 91 Montalescot G, Zeymer U, Silvain J, et al. Intravenous enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: the international randomised open‐label ATOLL trial. The Lancet 2011; 378:693–703.

92 92 Silvain J, Beygui F, Barthélémy O, et al. Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ 2012; 344:e553.

93 93 Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, et al. Effects of fondaparinux on mortality and reinfarction in patients with acute ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: the OASIS‐6 randomized trial. JAMA 2006; 295:1519–30.

94 94 Group FTT'C. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. The Lancet 1994; 343:311–22.

95 95 Topol EJ, Califf RM, George BS, et al. A randomized trial of immediate versus delayed elective angioplasty after intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1987; 317:581–8.

96 96 O'Neill WW, Weintraub R, Grines C, et al. A prospective, placebo‐controlled, randomized trial of intravenous streptokinase and angioplasty versus lone angioplasty therapy of acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1992; 86:1710–6.

97 97 ASSENT‐4 PCI Investigators. Primary versus tenecteplase‐facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST‐segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (ASSENT‐4 PCI): randomised trial. The Lancet 2006; 367:569–78.

98 98 Sutton AGC, Campbell PG, Graham R, et al. A randomized trial of rescue angioplasty versus a conservative approach for failed fibrinolysis in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: the Middlesbrough Early Revascularization to Limit INfarction (MERLIN) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44:287–96.

99 99 Gershlick AH, Stephens‐Lloyd A, Hughes S, et al. Rescue angioplasty after failed thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2758–68.

100 100 Desch S, Eitel I, Rahimi K, et al. Timing of invasive treatment after fibrinolysis in ST elevation myocardial infarction‐‐a meta‐analysis of immediate or early routine versus deferred or ischemia‐guided randomised controlled trials. Heart 2010; 96:1695–702.

101 101 Madan M, Halvorsen S, Di Mario C, et al. Relationship between time to invasive assessment and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing an early invasive strategy after fibrinolysis for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: a patient‐level analysis of the randomized early routine invasive clinical trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8:166–74.

102 102 Chesebro JH, Knatterud G, Roberts R, et al. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Trial, Phase I: A comparison between intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and intravenous streptokinase. Clinical findings through hospital discharge. Circulation 1987; 76:142–54.

103 103 GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:673–82.

104 104 van de Werf F. Single‐bolus tenecteplase compared with front‐loaded alteplase in acute myocardial infarction: the ASSENT‐2 double‐blind randomised trial. The Lancet 1999; 354:716–22.

105 105 ISIS‐2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised Trial of Intervenous Streptokinase, Oral Aspirin, Both, or Neither Among 17,187 Cases of Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction: ISIS‐2. The Lancet 1988; 332:349–60.

106 106 Sabatine MS, Cannon CP, Gibson CM, et al. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin and fibrinolytic therapy for myocardial infarction with ST‐segment elevation. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:1179–89.

107 107 Antman EM, Morrow DA, McCabe CH, et al. Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin with fibrinolysis for ST‐elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1477–88.

108 108 ASSENT‐3 Investigators. Efficacy and safety of tenecteplase in combination with enoxaparin, abciximab, or unfractionated heparin: the ASSENT‐3 randomised trial in acute myocardial infarction. The Lancet 2001; 358:605–13.

109 109 Ross AM, Molhoek P, Lundergan C, et al. Randomized comparison of enoxaparin, a low‐molecular‐weight heparin, with unfractionated heparin adjunctive to recombinant tissue plasminogen activator thrombolysis and aspirin: second trial of Heparin and Aspirin Reperfusion Therapy (HART II). Circulation 2001; 104:648–52.

110 110 The PARADIGM Investigators. Combining thrombolysis with the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor lamifiban: results of the Platelet Aggregation Receptor Antagonist Dose Investigation and Reperfusion Gain in Myocardial Infarction (PARADIGM) Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32:2003–10.

111 111 Ronner E, van Kesteren HA, Zijnen P, et al. Safety and efficacy of eptifibatide vs placebo in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction; a phase II dose escalation, randomized, double‐blind study. Eur Heart J 2000; 21:1530–6.

112 112 Antman EM, Giugliano RP, Gibson CM, et al. Abciximab facilitates the rate and extent of thrombolysis: results of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 14 trial. The TIMI 14 Investigators. Circulation 1999; 99:2720–32.

113 113 Ronner E, van Domburg RT, van den Brand MJBM, et al. Platelet GP IIb/IIIa receptor blockers for failed thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction, alone or as adjunct to other rescue therapies; single centre retrospective analysis of 548 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2002; 23:1529–37.

114 114 Denktas AE, Athar H, Henry TD, et al. Reduced‐dose fibrinolytic acceleration of ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction treatment coupled with urgent percutaneous coronary intervention compared to primary percutaneous coronary intervention alone results of the AMICO (Alliance for Myocardial Infarction Care Optimization) Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 1:504–10.

115 115 Armstrong PW, Gershlick AH, Goldstein P, et al. Fibrinolysis or primary PCI in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:1379–87.

116 116 Pu J, Ding S, Ge H, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a Pharmaco‐Invasive Strategy With Half‐Dose Alteplase Versus Primary Angioplasty in ST‐Segment‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction: EARLY‐MYO Trial (Early Routine Catheterization After Alteplase Fibrinolysis Versus Primary PCI in Acute ST‐Segment‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction). Circulation 2017; 136:1462–73.

117 117 Roule V, Ardouin P, Blanchart K, et al. Prehospital fibrinolysis versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Critical Care (London, England) 2016; 20:359.

118 118 Siontis KC, Barsness GW, Lennon RJ, et al. Pharmacoinvasive and Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction (from the Mayo Clinic STEMI Network). Amer J Cardiol 2016; 117:1904–10.

119 119 Carrillo X, Fernandez‐Nofrerias E, Rodriguez‐Leor O, et al. Early ST elevation myocardial infarction in non‐capable percutaneous coronary intervention centres: in situ fibrinolysis vs percutaneous coronary intervention transfer. Eur Heart J 2016; 37:1034–40.

120 120 Berwanger O, Lopes RD, Moia DDF, et al. Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With STEMI Treated With Fibrinolysis: TREAT Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73:2819–28.

121 121 Spaulding C, Henry P, Teiger E, et al. Sirolimus‐eluting versus uncoated stents in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1093–104.

122 122 Laarman GJ, Suttorp MJ, Dirksen MT, et al. Paclitaxel‐eluting versus uncoated stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1105–13.

123 123 Menichelli M, Parma A, Pucci E, et al. Randomized trial of Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent Versus Bare‐Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction (SESAMI). J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:1924–30.

124 124 Sabate M, Cequier A, Iñiguez A, et al. Everolimus‐eluting stent versus bare‐metal stent in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2012; 380:1482–90.

125 125 Sabaté M, Brugaletta S, Cequier A, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents (EXAMINATION): 5‐year results of a randomised trial. The Lancet 2016; 387:357–66.

126 126 Hofma SH, Brouwer J, Velders MA, et al. Second‐generation everolimus‐eluting stents versus first‐generation sirolimus‐eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction. 1‐year results of the randomized XAMI (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60:381–7.

127 127 Räber L, Kelbæk H, Ostojic M, et al. Effect of biolimus‐eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare‐metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial. JAMA 2012; 308:777–87.

128 128 Valdes‐Chavarri M, Kedev S, Neskovic AN, et al. Randomised evaluation of a novel biodegradable polymer‐based sirolimus‐eluting stent in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: the MASTER study. EuroIntervention 2019; 14:e1836–e1842.

129 129 Pilgrim T, Heg D, Roffi M, et al. Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus‐eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single‐blind, non‐inferiority trial. The Lancet 2014; 384:2111–22.

130 130 Pilgrim T, Piccolo R, Heg D, et al. Ultrathin‐strut, biodegradable‐polymer, sirolimus‐eluting stents versus thin‐strut, durable‐polymer, everolimus‐eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularisation: 5‐year outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE randomised trial. The Lancet 2018; 392:737–46.

131 131 Iglesias JF, Muller O, Heg D, et al. Biodegradable polymer sirolimus‐eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus‐eluting stents in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (BIOSTEMI): a single‐blind, prospective, randomised superiority trial. The Lancet 2019; 394:1243–53.

132 132 Sabaté M, Alfonso F, Cequier A, et al. Magnesium‐Based Resorbable Scaffold Versus Permanent Metallic Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent in Patients With ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The MAGSTEMI Randomized Clinical Trial. Circulation 2019; 140:1904–16.