The uncertain role of thrombolytic angioplasty within the treatment strategy for myocardial infarction

Abstract

The logical hypothesis that early angioplasty after lytic therapy would be of considerable clinical value flows from the recognized shortcomings of pharcologic reperfusion efforts. These shortcomings are: (1) failure to lyse some thrombotic occlusions; (2) limited quantifiable salvage relative to risk area, possibly related to low magnitude or reperfusion coronary flow through a tight residual stenosis; (3) frequent early postlytic reocclusion and reinfarction; and (4) common postinfarction angina after lysis and some degree of salvage. Recently however, important controlled clinical trials of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) after lytic therapy (most notably Thrombolysis and Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction study group, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction trial and the European Cooperative trial) have not confirmed this hypothesis. Very early PTCA after intravenous lytic therapy has not produced a favorable short-term outcome compared with delayed PTCA or a more conservative approach. Where is the flaw? Is it the hypothesis, the patient selection criteria or the specifics of therapeutic algorithms? While these issues are further investigated, current prudent clinical recommendations are best modified downward from enthusiastic rapid postlytic dilatation.