Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2026

Catheter-based Endovascular Angioplasty for Fibrosing Mediastinitis-associated Pulmonary Vein Stenosis
Published on: August 26, 2025
The pharmaco-invasive approach to STEMI: when should fibrinolytic-treated patients go to the "cath lab"?
J J Edmond1, C P Juergens, J K French
1Department of Cardiology, Liverpool Hospital, Elizabeth St, Liverpool, NSW, Australia. j.french@unsw.edu.au
Insights
Primary angioplasty (PCI) shows better outcomes than fibrinolytic therapy. However, delays in routine care mean fibrinolysis may yield similar results, especially with early treatment and rescue PCI.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Emergency Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials demonstrate superior outcomes compared to fibrinolytic therapy regarding reinfarction, stroke, and mortality.
- System delays, field triage, and prehospital fibrinolysis administration in routine practice can diminish the benefits of primary PCI.
- Early presentation (within 2 hours of symptom onset) may equalize clinical outcomes between reperfusion strategies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review the timing and indications for invasive strategies following fibrinolytic therapy.
- To discuss the role of rescue PCI and in-hospital revascularization in optimizing outcomes.
- To explore methods for non-invasively predicting failed reperfusion after fibrinolysis.
Main Methods:
- Literature review focusing on studies comparing primary PCI and fibrinolytic therapy.
- Analysis of factors influencing clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) management.
- Evaluation of non-invasive markers for reperfusion success, including ST-segment recovery, patient characteristics, and point-of-care troponin T measurements.
Main Results:
- While primary PCI is optimal, system delays can negate its advantages, making early fibrinolysis a viable option.
- Liberal use of rescue PCI and in-hospital revascularization is crucial for improving outcomes after fibrinolysis.
- ST recovery, patient factors, and rapid troponin T measurements can aid in predicting failed reperfusion.
Conclusions:
- The optimal reperfusion strategy in acute myocardial infarction depends on timely access to care and resource availability.
- In settings with delays, fibrinolysis followed by a strategy of routine early invasive intervention (including rescue PCI) can achieve favorable outcomes.
- Non-invasive assessment tools can help guide decisions regarding further invasive procedures after initial fibrinolysis.
Abstract:
Although primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical trials has lower rates of reinfarction, stroke and mortality than fibrinolytic therapy, because of system delays in routine practice, field triage and prehospital administration of fibrinolytic therapy may lead to similar clinical outcomes, especially in those patients who present in the first 2 h after symptom onset. Necessary for these outcomes is the liberal use of both rescue PCI and in-hospital revascularisation. Non-invasive prediction of failed reperfusion may be enhanced by the use of ST recovery, patient characteristics and troponin T levels, measured by point-of-care assays. This review focuses on the timing of, and indications for, an invasive strategy after fibrinolytic therapy, including that for failed pharmacological reperfusion.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Cardiac Catheterization III: Left Heart Catheterization
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
