Author + information
- Received March 2, 2005
- Revision received May 10, 2005
- Accepted May 15, 2005
- Published online April 4, 2006.
- Timothy D. Henry, MD⁎,⁎ (, )
- James M. Atkins, MD†,
- Michael S. Cunningham, MD‡,
- Gary S. Francis, MD§,
- William J. Groh, MD, MPH∥,
- Robert A. Hong, MD¶,
- Karl B. Kern, MD#,
- David M. Larson, MD⁎⁎,
- Erik Magnus Ohman, MD††,
- Joseph P. Ornato, MD‡‡,
- Mary Ann Peberdy, MD‡‡,
- Michael J. Rosenberg, MD§§ and
- W. Douglas Weaver, MD∥∥
- ↵⁎Reprint requests and correspondence:
Dr. Timothy D. Henry, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, 920 East 28th Street, Suite 40, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407.
Despite substantial progress in the diagnosis and treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), implementation of this knowledge into routine clinical practice has been variable. It has become increasing clear that primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred method of reperfusion if it can be performed in a timely manner. Recent European data suggest that transfer for direct PCI may also be preferable to fibrinolytic therapy. We believe it is time to establish a national policy for treatment of patients with STEMI to develop a coordinated system of care similar to that of the level 1 trauma system.
- Received March 2, 2005.
- Revision received May 10, 2005.
- Accepted May 15, 2005.
- American College of Cardiology Foundation
- The ideal method of reperfusion
- Implementation of clinical trial results
- Outcomes in specialty centers
- Safety of transfer
- Recent clinical trials regarding transfer
- Influence of time to treatment for PCI
- Analogies to the trauma system
- Accreditation and quality assurance
- High-risk patients
- Future directions