Time as a factor in thrombolytic therapy.

There is abundant evidence from angiographic studies that reperfusion and/or patency rates are greater when thrombolysis is initiated earlier. Evidence of a reduction in infarct size has been provided by a number of studies, which have also suggested that earlier therapy preserves left ventricular function. The major intravenous thrombolytic mortality trials appear to confirm the importance of delivering therapy soon after the onset of symptoms e.g. GISSI and ISIS-2. However, the benefit reported in the first hour in GISSI may be questioned. Furthermore, it seems probable that those coming in late to trials are patients who did not have a sudden onset of symptoms, but whose symptoms persisted, perhaps with recurrent pain, or with heart failure symptoms. This may account for the fact that the benefit seen relatively late, particularly in ISIS-2, does not seem to accord with reperfusion, infarct size and LVEF findings. The true benefits of earlier therapy will be established only when patients are randomized to active therapy or placebo at one point in time and then switched to alternative therapy at a specified later time. This has been done in a small trial with alteplase in Belfast. The findings were suggestive but not conclusive of an improvement in LVEF in those treated earlier. The European Myocardial Infarction Project (EMIP) should go far towards answering the question. In most European cities the time between onset of symptoms and the initiation of skilled treatment for myocardial infarction is of the order of 5-6 h.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)