↓ Skip to main content

Prehospital fibrinolysis versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prehospital fibrinolysis versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Critical Care, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1530-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent Roule, Pierre Ardouin, Katrien Blanchart, Adrien Lemaitre, Julien Wain-Hobson, Damien Legallois, Joachim Alexandre, Rémi Sabatier, Paul Milliez, Farzin Beygui

Abstract

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but its benefit over prehospital fibrinolysis (FL) is not clear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in which outcomes of patients with STEMI managed with FL early in the prehospital setting versus PPCI were compared. Compared with PPCI, FL was consistently associated with similar rates of short-term (30-90 days) death (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95 % CI 0.67-1.31) and cardiovascular death (RR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.64-1.4), a decreased risk of cardiogenic shock (RR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.48-0.95), and an increased risk of any stroke (RR 3.57, 95 % CI 1.39-9.17) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 4.37, 95 % CI 1.25-15.26). FL was also associated with similar rates of 1-year mortality (RR 1.01, 95 % CI 0.75-1.34) and major bleeding (RR 1.31, 95 % CI 0.96-1.78) in comparison with PPCI, but with a notable level (I (2) index 30.5 % and 59.8 %) of heterogeneity among studies. Our study suggests that, compared with PPCI, FL performed in the early prehospital setting is associated with similar mortality rates, lower rates of cardiogenic shock, and higher rates of stroke in patients with STEMI. Although the number of studies comparing the two strategies is relatively low, our results support prehospital FL and transfer to hub percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centers as a valid alternative to PPCI, allowing potential limitation of resources allocated to developing proximity 24/7 PCI facilities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 93 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 23%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Student > Master 6 6%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 28 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,262,778
of 18,925,350 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,946
of 5,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,371
of 304,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#172
of 264 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,925,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,535 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 264 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.