[Intravenous streptokinase versus heparin in recent acute myocardial infarction. Randomized multicenter study in the Franche-Comté].

A multicentre randomised therapeutic trial was undertaken in 8 hospitals in the Franche-Comté department of France (Belfort, Besançon, Dole, Lons-le-Saunier, Luxeuil, Montbéliard, Vesoul, Pontarlier) in which 101 patients with acute primary myocardial infarction were treated within 5 hours of onset of symptoms with either intravenous streptokinase (1,500,000 U in 30 mn) or conventional heparin therapy. The results were assessed on the clinical outcome, arterial patency in the necrosed territory and global and regional ejection fractions (EF) at the 3rd week. After randomisation, 51 patients were given heparin and 50 received streptokinase. Seven patients died in the heparin group and 4 in the streptokinase group (NS). At the third week, the artery in the necrosed zone was patent in 69% of the heparin group and in 68% of the streptokinase group (NS). The EF was significantly higher in the patients with patent arteries in the necrosed zone than in those with occluded arteries (0.49 +/- 0.12 vs 0.41 +/- 0.15, p less than 0.01). There was no significant difference in EF between the heparin and streptokinase groups. The EF was significantly higher in patients with anterior infarction who received streptokinase than in those who received heparin (0.40 +/- 0.10 vs 0.33 +/- 0.09 p less than 0.05). Segmental wall motion was significantly better at the apex and free wall. There was no significant difference between the two groups in posterior infarction. These results show that reestablishment or maintenance of arterial patency in the necrosed zone improves left ventricular function and that patients with anterior wall infarction are the ones most likely to benefit from streptokinase therapy.