acute myocardial infarction clinical trials results

Abciximab versus primary intervention
ERAMI (Mesquita Gabriel), 2003
facilated PCI with Abciximab; 0·25 mg/kg intravenous bolus, 0·125 µg/kg per min infusion
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <12h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
FINESSE (abciximab-facilitated PCI), 2008
NCT00046228
abciximab-facilitated PCI
versus
primary PCI (abciximab administered immediately before the procedure)
patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; symptom duration <6h open
Follow-up duration: 90 days
REOMOBILE (Arntz), 2003
facilated PCI with Abciximab; 0·25 mg/kg intravenous bolus, 0·125 µg/kg per min infusion
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <6h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
Zorman, 2002
facilated PCI with Abciximab; 0·25 mg/kg intravenous bolus, 0·125 µg/kg per min infusion
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <12h
Follow-up duration: In hospital
ReoPro-BRIDGING (Gyongyosi), 2004
facilated PCI with Abciximab; 0·25 mg/kg intravenous bolus, 0·125 µg/kg per min infusion
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <6h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
Bellandi, 2006
facilated PCI with Abciximab; 0·25 mg/kg intravenous bolus, 0·125 µg/kg per min infusion
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <6h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
Abciximab + reteplase versus primary intervention
BRAVE (Kastrati), 2004
facilated PCI with Abciximab, 0·25 mg/kg intravenouse bolus, 0·125 µg/kg per min infusion and reteplase 5 units (intravenous double bolus)
versus
symptom duration <12h
Follow-up duration: 30 days
FINESSE (combination-facilitated PCI), 2008
NCT00046228
combination-facilitated PCI with abciximab plus half-dose reteplase
versus
primary PCI (abciximab administered immediately before the procedure)
patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; symptom duration <6hopen
Follow-up duration: 90 days
accelerated t-PA versus APSAC
TAPS, 1992
front-loaded administration of rt-PA
versus
APSAC
patients with acute myocardial infarction.open
TIMI 4, 1994
front-loaded rt-PA
versus
APSAC
patients with acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
accelerated t-PA versus streptokinase
GUSTO tPA Hiv, 1993
tPA accéléré (15 mg en bolus, puis 0.75 mg/kg en 30 min sans dépasser 50 mg puis 0.5 mg/kg en 60 min sans dépasser 35 mg) + héparine en IV (5000 U en bolus, 1000 U/h (de préférence 1200 U/h si > 80 kg), poursuivi au moins 48 h)
versus
Streptokinase 1.5 MU en 60 min + héparine SC (12500 U 2 fois/j commencée 4h après thrombolytique) combiné à streptokinase (1.5 MU en 60 min) + héparine en IV (5000 U en bolus, puis 1000 U/h (1200 U/h si > 80 kg) poursuivi au moins 48 h)
Hommes et femmes
Follow-up duration: 30 d
International 15 countries
accelerated t-PA versus t-PA
RAAMI, 1992
100 mg of rt-PA accelerated 90-min regimen (15-mg bolus followed by 50 mg over 30 min, then 35 mg over 60 min)
versus
100 mg of rt-PA standard 3-h infusion regimen (an initial 10-mg bolus followed by 50 mg for the 1st h, then 20 mg/h for 2 h
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 6h from onset of chest painopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
US
Acebutolol versus placebo
APSI, 1990
Acebutolol 200mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patient surviving MI at hight riskDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 318 days
France
Azancot, 1982
Acebutolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
control
patients seen within 24 hours after the onset of uncomplicated anterior transmural myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Alprenolol versus placebo
Andersen , 1979
Alprenolol 5-10 mg intravenously, followed by 200 mg twice a day
versus
placebo
patients years with definite or suspected myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: About 1 year
Denmark
Wilhelmsson , 1974
Alprenolol 200mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patient aged 57-67 years discharge alive after acute myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Sueden
alteplase versus primary intervention
LIMI (Vermeer), 1999
facilated PCI with Alteplase 50 mg(intravenous bolus)mag
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <6h
Follow-up duration: 42-day
PACT (Ross,), 1999
facilated PCI with alteplase 50 mg (intravenous bolus)
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <6h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
Angioguard versus conventional PCI
DIPLOMATE, 2004
Angioguard
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Wang, 2003
Angioguard
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
AngioJet versus conventional PCI
AiMI, 2006
AngioJet
versus
PCI alone
patients presenting within 12 h of symptom onsetopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Florence, 2004
AngioJet
versus
placebo
patients with a first acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 1 month
anistreplase versus streptokinase
TEAM 2, 1991
anistreplase (30 units/2-5 min)
versus
streptokinase (1.5 million units/60 min
less than 76 years of age with electrocardiographic ST segment elevation who could be treated within 4 hours of symptom onsetdouble blind
AnjioJet versus conventional PCI
JETSTENT, 2010
AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy
versus
direct stenting alone
patients with ST-elevation MI and at least moderate thrombus burden open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Italy
any anticoagulant versus aspirin
EPSIM, 1982
anticoagulant
versus
aspirin 500mg three times daily
patients surviving myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 29 months (range 6-59)
any anticoagulant versus placebo
Sixty Plus reinfarction Study, 1980
anticoagulant
versus
placebo
over 60 years of agedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
APSAC versus control
APSIM, 1989
APSAC 30 U over 5 min
versus
control (conventional heparin therapy, 5,000 IU in a bolus injection)
patients with a first acute myocardial infarction within 5 h after the onset of symptomsopen
Follow-up duration: 3 weeks
France
APSAC versus placebo
AIMS, 1988
APSAC 30U IV in 5 min
versus
Placebo
Hommes et femmes, < 70 ansdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
German Multicenter Trial, 1988
APSAC 30 unités en IV en 5 min, puis héparine en IV (17 U/kg/h) 4 h après l'injection d'APSAC
versus
Héparine 5000 U en bolus en IV, puis 17 U/kg/h
Hommes et femmes, < 70 ans
Follow-up duration: 28 jours
APSAC versus streptokinase
ISIS III (SK/APSAC), 1992
Streptokinase 1.5 MU infused over about 1 h
versus
anisoylated plasminogen-streptokinase activator complex (APSAC), anistreplase: 30 U over about 3 min
patients within 24 h of the onset of suspected acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 mo
International 17 countries
APSAC versus t-PA
TEAM 3, 1992
APSAC, 30 U/2 to 5 min
versus
rt-PA, 100 mg/3 h,
patient with ST elevalation within 4h of the onset of symptomsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 months
Argatroban versus heparin
ARGAMI-2, 1998
Argatroban 60–20 mg/kg bolus; 2–4 µg /kg/min infusion for 72h
versus
UFH 5000 IU bolus; 1000 IU/h infusion
AMI
Follow-up duration: 30 days
aspirin versus control
Huddinge, 1988
aspirin 500mg/d starting 12 h after admissionand and then intermittently every third day for one month
versus
no aspirin
patients with acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 30d (12m)
Frankfurt, 1976
A1320 + D300, A1320
versus

Follow-up duration: 14d
aspirin versus placebo
ISIS-pilot, 1987
aspirin (325 mg on alternate days for 28 days)
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1m
ISIS-2, 1988
160 mg/day enteric-coated aspirin for one month
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial up to 24hdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 35d
Dutch-aspirin, 1990
aspirin (100 mg/day) for 3 months
versus
placebo
patients with first anterior wall AMIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3m
APRICOT, 1993
325 mg aspirin daily with discontinuation of heparin
versus
placebo
Patients treated with intravenous thrombolytic therapy followed by intravenous heparin and with patent infarct-related artery demonstrated at angiography within 48 hoursdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3m
The Netherlands
Atenolol versus placebo
ISIS1 Collaborative Group , 1986
Atenolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
control
patients within 5 h the onset of suspected acute myocardial infarctionNo
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Van de Werf , 1993
Atenolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 1014 days
Yusuf , 1980
Atenolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
No
Follow-up duration: 1-4y
atorvastatin high dose versus pravastatin
PROVE-IT, 2004
atorvastatin 80 mg daily
versus
Pravastatin 40 mg
acute myocardial infarction (with or without electrocardiographic evidence of ST-segment elevation) or highrisk unstable angina) in the preceding 10 daysdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
8 countries
autologous bone marrow stem cells versus control
ASTAMi (Lunde), 2006
intracoronary injection of autologous mononuclear BMC (stem cells 0.68 10^8)
versus
control (Heparanized plasma)
patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction of the anterior wall treated with percutaneous coronary intervention open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
BOOSt (Meyer), 2004
stem cells mean 2.46 10^9
versus
control(Heparanised plasma)
successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Chen, 2004

versus

Follow-up duration: 6 months
Huang, 2006
intracoronary transplantation of autologous BM-MNC via a micro-catheter right after PCI (stem cells mean 1.8 10^8)
versus
placebo (Heparanised saline)
patients with first onset of acute inferior-wall myocardial infarction aged < or = 75, treated with emergent percutaneous coronary interventionopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Karpov, 2005
intracoronary injection of bone marrow mononuclear cells (stem cells mean 88.5 10^6)
versus
control
patients with acute myocardial infarction.NA
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Li, 2007
autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation by intracoronary infusion (stem cells mean 7.25 10^7)
versus
control
patients with AMI open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
MAGIC (cell infusion ), 2004
intracoronary infusion of collected peripheral blood stem-cells
versus
control
patients with myocardial infarction who underwent coronary stenting for the culprit lesion of infarction
MAGIC Cell-3-DES (Kang), 2006
intracoronary infusion of mobilized peripheral blood stem cells by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (stem cells 1-2 10^9)
versus
control
patients with myocardial infarction who underwent coronary revascularization with DES for the culprit lesion open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Meluzin HD, 2006
intracoronar mononuclear bone marrow cells (stem cells 10^8)
versus
control (Cell suspension media)
patients with a first acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 3 months
Meluzin LD, 2006
intracoronar mononuclear bone marrow cells (stem cells 10^7)
versus
control (Cell suspension media)
patients with a first acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 3 months
Penicka, 2007
Intracoronary injection of autologous bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells (stem cells 26.4 10^8)
versus
control
patients with large anterior acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 4 months
Ruan, 2005
intracoronary injection of bone-marrow cell (stem cells dose NA)
versus
control (Diluted serum)
with acute myocardial infarction and anterior descending coronary artery occlusion proven by angiographyopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Suarez de Lezo (cell), 2007
intracoronary infusion of autologous mononuclear bone marrow cells (9 10^8)
versus
control (Saline containing 0.1% heparin)
patients with revascularized anterior wall AMI and depressed left ventricular function (ejection fraction < 45%) open
Follow-up duration: 3 months
TCT-STAMI (Ge), 2006
emergent intracoronary autologous bone marrow cell transplantation (4 10^7 SC)
versus
control
patients admitted within 24 h after the onset of a first AMI NA
Follow-up duration: 6 months
autologous bone marrow stem cells versus placebo
Janssens, 2006
stem cells mean 1.7 10^8
versus
placebo (Saline and 5% autologous serum)
patienst with successful percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4 months
REPAIR-AMI (Schachinger), 2006
NCT00279175
intracoronary infusion of progenitor cells derived from bone marrow (stem cells mean 2.36 10^8)
versus
placebo (X-vivo media and 20% autologous serum)
patients with acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 4 months
Betaxolol versus placebo
Yang , 1987
Betaxolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 14 days
bivalirudin versus heparin
HERO, 1997
Bivalirudin 0.125–0.250 mg/kg bolus; 0.125–0.500 mg /kg/min infusion for 72h
versus
UFH 5000 IU bolus; 1000–1200 IU/h infusion
AMI (patients presenting within 12 hours with ST-segment elevation)double blind
Follow-up duration: 35 days
bolus t-PA versus accelerated t-PA
COBALT, 1997
of 50 mg of alteplase over a period of 1 to 3 minutes followed 30 minutes later by a second bolus of 50 mg (or 40 mg for patients who weighed less than 60 kg).
versus
weight-adjusted, accelerated infusion of 100 mg of alteplase
patients with acute myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
captopril versus placebo
Bussmann, 1992
slow intravenous bolus injection of 2.5 or 5.0 mg captopril followed by a continuous infusion of 1.5-2.0 mg/h for a period of 48 hours
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 48h
CATS, 1996
captopril 25 mg three times a day
versus
placebo
patients with a first anterior myocardial infarction treated with intravenous streptokinase within 6h of onset of symptomsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
The Netherlands
SAVE, 1992
Captopril 12·5 mg initial dose, up to 25–50 mg three times daily
versus
placebo
patient within 3–16 days of a MI, LVEF <40%double blind
Follow-up duration: 3.5y
CCS-1, 1995
captopril6.25 mg initial dose, 12.5 mg 2 h later, and then 12.5 mg three times daily for 28 days
versus
placebo
Acute MI <36h of MIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 month
China
Di Pasquale, 1997
captopril first dose 2-4 h after starting thrombolysis (the dose was then increased up to 25 mg every 8 h
versus
placebo
patients hospitalized for suspected anterior AMI within 4 h from the onset of symptoms suitable for thrombolysis double blind
Follow-up duration: 12h
italy
Di Pasquale, 1994
captopril, 6.25 mg, orally 15 min before thrombolysis
versus
placebo before thrombolysis
patients with acute myocardial infarction , hospitalized within 4 h of the onset of symptomsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2h
Italy
Pfeffer, 1988
Captopril
versus
placebo
patient within 11-31 days after MI, LVEF<=45%, not in overt congestive heart failuredouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
ECCE, 1997
captopril titrated dose in order to preserve their blood pressure
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Sogaard, 1994
Captopril 50mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction on day 7 after MIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Sharpe, 1988
Captopril 25 mg thrice a day
versus
placebo
patients with symptomless left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF<45%) 1 week after a myocardial infarction without clinical evidence of heart failuredouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
French, 1999
captopril 6.25 mg, increasing to 50 mg t.d.s.
versus
placebo
patients aged < or = 75 years with first infarctions, presenting within 4 h of symptom onsetdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
New Zealand
Mortarino, 1990
Captopril 25 mg bid
versus
placebo
patient with mild congestive heart failure after recent MIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 months
Galcera, 1993
captopril
versus
placebo
patients with a first acute myocardial infarction and a pulmonary capillary pressure equal or above 17 mmHgdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 14 days
Hargreaves, 1992
12.5 mg of captopril three times daily
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction (systolic blood pressure > 90 mm Hg) within 24 hours of the start of paindouble blind
Follow-up duration: 28 days
UK
ISIS-4, 1995
captopril 6.25mg twice daily initialy titrated up to 50 mg twice daily (for 1 month)
versus
placebo
Acute MI <24h of MI, no cardiogenic shock or persistent severe hypotensiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 month
31 countries
Nabel, 1991
intravenous followed by oral captopril
versus
placebo
patients with myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3 months
Ray, 1993
captopril 25 mg three times a day
versus
placebo
haemodynamically stable patients with acute myocardial infarction, selected on clinical grounds as being at risk of late ventricular dilatationdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Glasgow
Sharpe, 1991
captopril 50 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patients with Q wave myocardial infarction, but without clinical heart failure 24-48h after onset of symptoms double blind
Follow-up duration: 3 months
captopril or enalapril versus placebo
PRACTICAL (captopril), 1994
captopril 25 mg three times daily or enalapril 5 mg three times daily
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours of onsetdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Carvedilol versus placebo
Basu , 1997
Carvedilol target dose 25 mg BID
versus
placebo
Patients with acute MI <24h Double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
UK
clopidogrel versus placebo
COMMIT, 2005
NCT00222573
clopidogrel 75 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients admitted to hospital within 24 h of suspected acute MI onset double-blind
Follow-up duration: until discharge or up to 4 wee
CLARITY-TIMI 28, 2005
clopidogrel (300-mg loading dose, followed by 75 mg once daily)
versus
placebo
patients, 18 to 75 years of age, within 12 hours after the onset of an ST-elevation myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
coumadin versus aspirin
ASPECT-2 (coumadin alone), 2002
coumadin (phenprocoumon or acenocoumarol) target INR 3-4
versus
aspirin 80mg daily
Acute MI, unstable anginaopen
Follow-up duration: 1 year (range 0-26 months)
the Netherlands
coumadin versus control (on top of aspirin)
ASPECT-2 (coumadin+ASA vs ASA), 2002
coumadin(INR mean 2.4) +aspirin
versus
aspirin
Acute MI, unstable angina open
Follow-up duration: 1 year
the Netherlands
coumadin versus placebo
ASPECT, 1994
nicoumalone or phenprocoumon, target INR 2.8–4.8
versus
placebo
hospital survivors of myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 37 months (range 6-76)
Dalteparin versus placebo
BIOMACS II, 1999
Dalteparin 100 mg/kg, 2 doses
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction, Age <=80 y, STEMI or new LBBBDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 14–21 d
FRAMI, 1997
Dalteparin 150 mg/kg BID for 7–11 d
versus
placebo
patients with an acute MI, Q wave or STEMIDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: in hospital
Dalteparin versus UFH
ASSENT Plus, 2003
Dalteparin first dose 90 IU/kg, then 120 IU/kg BID, 4–7 d
versus
UFH 4000–5000 IU bolus, then 800–1000 IU/h for 48 h
Patients with AMI treated with alteplase open
Follow-up duration: 30 d
dazoxiben versus control
Jones, 1987
DZ
versus

Follow-up duration: 1m
diltiazem versus placebo
Gibson, 1986
Diltiazem 90mgx4
versus
placebo
double blind
Follow-up duration: 14 days
Zannad, 1988
Diltiazem 10-20mg/h IV, 4x60mg orraly
versus
placebo
double blind
MDPIT, 1988
Diltiazem 60mgx4
versus
placebo
Patient aged 25 to 75 years, admitted to coronary care units with a documented acute myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 25 months (at least 12 months)
US, Canada
Diver versus conventional PCI
De Luca, 2006
Diver
versus
conventional stenting
patients with anterior ST elevation myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
PIHRATE, 2004
Diver
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
REMEDIA, 2005
Diver
versus
standard PCI
patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Sardella, 2005
Diver
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 6 months
dofetilide versus placebo
DIAMOND MI, 1997
dofetilide
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 7 days and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (EF <= 35%) double blind
Follow-up duration: >12 months
Danish
drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stent
DEDICATION, 2008
NCT00192868
DES currently used with or without distal protection
versus
BMS with or without distal protection
patients referred within 12 hours from symptom onset of an ST-elevation myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 8 mo (15 mo, 3y)
Denmark.
PASEO, 2009
paclitaxel-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents
versus
bare metal stent
patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 12 hours from symptom onsetopen
Follow-up duration: 4.3 years
early implantation of ICD after MI versus control
IRIS, 2009
NCT00157768
prophylactic ICD implantation early after myocardial infarction
versus
optimal medical therapy alone
patients patients at increased risk 5 to 31 days after AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 37 months
elinogrel versus placebo
ERASE-MI, 2009
elinogrel 10, 20, 40, or 60 mg as a single intravenous bolus
versus
placebo
STEMI patients double blind
Follow-up duration: 30-37 days
enalapril versus placebo
CONSENSUS 2, 1992
enalapril (1 mg IV infusion +5-20 mg PO daily) for 6 months
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarctions and blood pressure above 100/60 mm Hg, <24h of MI double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Scandinavia
Schulman, 1995
intravenous enalaprilat (1 mg) then oral treatment for 1 month
versus
placebo
patients with an acute Q-wave AMI within 24 hours of symptom onset double blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
US
Enoxaparin versus placebo
AMI-SK, 2002
Enoxaparin 30 mg IV bolus, 1 mg/kg for 3–8 d
versus
placebo
patients with evolving myocardial infarction, Age >=18 y, STEMIDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 30 d
Enoxaparin versus UFH
ASSENT 3 Plus, 2003
Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg BID, <=7d
versus
UFH 60 IU/kg, then 12 IU/kg per h for >=3d
patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 30 d
ASSENT 3, 2001
Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg BID, <=7d
versus
UFH 60 U/kg bolus, then 12 IU/kg per h for 48 h
patients with acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 30 d
Baird, 2002
Enoxaparin 40 mg TID, 4 d
versus
UFH 5000 IU bolus, then 30 000 IU over 24 h for 4d
patients receiving fibrinolytic therapy following acute myocardial infarction 90-min TIMI flow
Follow-up duration: 90 d
ENTIRE-TIMI 2, 2002
Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg BID, <=8d
versus
UFH 60 IU/kg, then 12 IU/kg per h for >=3d
Patients with ST-elevation MI presenting <6 hours from symptom onset were open
Follow-up duration: 30 d
HART II, 2001
Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg BID, <=3d
versus
UFH 4000–5000 IU bolus, then 15 IU/kg per hour for >=3d
patients undergoing reperfusion therapy with an accelerated recombinant tissue plasminogen activator regimen and aspirin for AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 5–7 d
Entonox versus placebo
Kerr, 1975
nitrous oxide 50%/oxygen 50% ('Entonox" analgesic apparatus)
versus
placebo
double-blind
epoetin alfa versus placebo
HEBE III, 2010
single bolus of 60,000 IU epoetin alfa administered intravenously within three hours after a successful PCI
versus
control
patients with a first ST-elevation MI and a successful PCI open
Follow-up duration: 6 weeks
the Netherlands
Eptifibatide versus primary intervention
INTAMI (Zeymer), 2005
facilated PCI with Eptifibatide; 180 µg/kg intravenous double bolus, 2·0 µg/kg per min infusion
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <12h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
Eptifibatide + tenecteplase versus primary intervention
ADVANCE-MI, 2005
facilated PCI with Eptifibatide, 180 µg/kg intravenous double bolus, 2·0 µg/kg per min infusion and tenecteplase 0·25 mg/kg (intravenous bolus)
versus
symptom duration <4h
Follow-up duration: 30 days
error versus control
Dekleva, 2004

versus
error versus error
Zharov, 1991

versus
erythropoietin versus placebo
REVEAL,
NCT00378352
Single parenteral administration of erythropoietin at 15,000 Units, 30,000 Units, or 60,000 Units
versus
placebo
patients after large myocardial infarction double-blind
Export versus conventional PCI
Lipiecki, 2009
thrombus aspiration group with the Export catheter (n = 20) (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN)
versus
EXPIRA, 2005
Export
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 1, 9 months
Export (Chevalier), 2008
Export
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Noel, 2005
Export
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
TAPAS, 2008
ISRCTN16716833
Export
versus
conventional PCI
patients with myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 1,12 months
Netherlands
facilitated stenting versus alteplase
STOPAMI 1, 2000
stent plus abciximab
versus
intravenous alteplase
patients with acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
FilterWire versus conventional PCI
PROMISE, 2005
FilterWire
versus
control
patients with myocardial infarction with and without ST-segment elevationopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
UpFlow MI, 2007
FilterWire
versus
PCI using regular guidewires
patients with STEMI and coronary angiographic evidence of thrombotic occlusionopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
FilterWireg versus conventional PCI
DEDICATION, 2008
FilterWireg
versus
PCI without distal protection
patients with STEMI referred within 12 h to have PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
flurbiprofen versus placebo
French, 1993
flurbiprofen 50 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patients successfully treated for acute MI by thrombolysis and/or coronary angioplasty within 6 h of onset of symptomsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6m
fondaparinux versus placebo
MICHELANGELO OASIS-6, 2006
NCT00064428
fondaparinux 2.5 mg once daily up to 8 days
versus
control (UFH or placebo)
patients with STEMI double-blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
41 countries
fosinopril versus placebo
FAMIS, 1998
fosinopril
versus
placebo
patients with anterior acute myocardial infarction within 9 hours of onsetdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Italy
G-CSF versus control
Deng, 2006
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
control

Follow-up duration: 12 months
China
FIRSTLINE-AMI (Ince), 2005
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
usual care
patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI with stenting and abciximabopen
Follow-up duration: 4 months (1y)
germany
MAGIC (G-CSF) (Kang), 2004
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
control
patients with myocardial infarction who underwent coronary stenting for the culprit lesion of infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 6 montsh
MAGIC 1 (Kang), 2007
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
control
patients with myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 24 months
MAGIC Cell-3-DES (Kang), 2006
peripheral blood stem cells mobilized by G-CSF for 3 days and delivered to infarcted myocardium via intracoronary infusion
versus
control
patients with recent or old myocardial infarction who underwent coronary revascularization with DESopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Korea
RIGENERA (Leone), 2007
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
control
patients with large anterior wall AMI at high risk of unfavorable remodeling and with successful primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention and LVEF<50%open
Follow-up duration: 5 months
Suarez de Lezo (G-CSF), 2007
systemic administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
control
patients with revascularized anterior wall AMI and depressed left ventricular function (ejection fraction < 45%)open
Follow-up duration: 3 months
Suzuki, 2006
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
control
patients with angina or AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Takano, 2007
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
control
patients with AMI related with the left anterior descending coronary artery, who underwent successful percutaneous coronary interventionopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Japan
G-CSF versus placebo
Ellis, 2006
NCT00215124
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) at 5 escalating to 10 microg/kg per day subcutaneously for 5 days
versus
placebo
patients with large acute myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 months
G-CSF-STEMI (Engelmann), 2006
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
placebo
patients with late revascularized subacute STEMIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3 months
germany
REVIVAL-2 (Zohlnhöfer ), 2006
NCT00126100
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction after successful mechanical reperfusion reduces infarct sizedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Germany
STEMMI (Ripa), 2006
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
placebo
patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Valgimigli, 2005
granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)
versus
placebo
patients with STEMIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Italy
GIK infusion versus control
OASIS 6, 2007
NCT00064428
High-dose GIK solution consisting of 25% glucose, 50 U/L of regular insulin, and 80 mEq/L of potassium infused at 1.5 mL/kg per hour for 24 hours
versus
control
patients with acute STEMI
CREATE-ECLA , 2006
GIK intravenous infusion for 24 hours
versus
usual care
patients with STEMI within 12 hours of symptom onsetopen
Glucose-insulin-potassium study II, 2007
GIK infusion
versus
standard care
STEMI patients without signs of heart failure
Krljanac, 2005
high dose of GIK (25% glucose, 50 IU of soluble insulin per liter, and 80 mmol of potassium chloride per liter at 1 ml/kg/hour over 24 hours)
versus
control
patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 12 hours from symptom onset open
GIK infusion versus placebo
Bucciarelli-Ducci , 2006
GIK infusion
versus
placebo
patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
GR3219B versus control
GRAND, 1987
GRB
versus

Follow-up duration: 1m
Guardwire versus conventional PCI
ASPARAGUS, 2008
Guardwire
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: hospital stay, 6 months
GuardWire versus conventional PCI
EMERALD, 2005
GuardWire
versus
angioplasty without distal protection
patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction presenting within 6 hours of symptom onset and undergoing primary PCI or rescue intervention after failed thrombolysisopen
Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months
MICADO, 2007
GuardWire
versus
PCI without distal protection
Patients with AMI within 24 hours from onsetopen
Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months
Guardwire versus conventional PCI
Nanasato, 2004
Guardwire
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
GuardWire versus conventional PCI
Ochala, 2007
GuardWire
versus
abciximab
patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction referred for primary percutaneous coronary interventionopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Tahk, 2008
GuardWire
versus
primary angioplasty without distal protection
AMI patients presenting within 12 h of onset of symptomsopen
Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months
Hirudin versus heparin
HIT-4, 1999
Hirudin 0.2 mg/kg bolus; 0.5 mg/kg twice daily 0.1 mg/kg 0.1 mg /kg/h infusion for 5-7 days
versus
Placebo bolus, UFH 12 500 IU twice daily
patients with AMI <=6 h were treated with aspirin and streptokinase double blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
TIMI 9B, 1996
Hirudin 0.1 mg/kg bolus; 0.1 mg /kg/h infusion for 96h
versus
UFH 5000 IU bolus; 1000 IU/h infusion
Unstable angina or AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 30 days
hyperbaric oxygen versus control
Sharifi, 2004
hyperbaric oxygen therapy
versus
after percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris
Swift, 1992
hyperbaric oxygen
versus
patients within 1 week of acute myocardial infarction
Thurston, 1973
hyperbaric oxygen
versus
acute myocardial infarction
Hot MI, 1997
Hyperbaric oxygen
versus
Patients with an acute myocardial infarction who received recombinant tissue plasminogen activator
Hyperbaric oxygen versus control
HOT MI pilot, 1997
Hyperbaric oxygen
versus
Patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who received recombinant tissue plasminogen activator
IABP versus non-IABP
IABP SHOCK II, 2012
NCT00491036
intraaortic balloon counterpulsation
versus
no intraaortic balloon counterpulsation
patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction open label
Follow-up duration: 30 days
Arias, 2005
intra-aortic balloon pump
versus
no IABP
patients with acute myocardial infarction single-blind
Mexique
TACTICS, 2005
IABP
versus
no IABP
patients with MI complicated by sustained hypotension, possible cardiogenic shock, or possible heart failure
IABP SHOCK (Prondzinsky), 2010
NCT00469248
IABP
versus
no IABP
patients with AMI and CS undergoing PCI open label
IABP versus other LVAD
Burkhoff, 2006
intraaortic balloon pumping
versus
TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD
patients presenting within 24 hours of developing cardiogenic shock
Seyfarth, 2008
intra-aortic balloon pump
versus
Impella LP2.5
patients with cardiogenic shock
Thiele, 2005
IABP
versus
Tandem Heart
Patients in CS after AMI, with intended PCI of the infarcted artery
ICD versus no ICD
MADIT-II, 2002
implantable cardiac defibrillator
versus
no ICD, optimized medical therapy
patients with a prior myocardial infarction and EF<=0.30open
Follow-up duration: 20 months
DINAMIT, 2004
implantable cardioverter defibrillator
versus
no ICD, optimized medical therapy
patients within 6–40 days of myocardial infarct ischemic with EF<=0.35 and cardiac autonomic modulation (depressed heart rate variability or increased mean 24-hour heart rate)open
Follow-up duration: 30 months
IM lidocaine (without infusion) versus control
Koster and Dunning, 1985
lidocaine loading dose IM 400 mg
versus
no lidocaine
suspected acute myocardial infarctionSingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 1h for VT
IM lidocaine (without infusion) versus placebo
Sandlar, 0
lidocaine loading dose IM 200mg or IM 300mg
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarctionDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 4h for VT
Singh and Kocot, 1976
lidocaine loading dose IM 4.5 mg/kg
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarctionDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3h for VT
Lie (IM), 1978
lidocaine loading dose IM 300 mg
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarctionDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1h for VT
Dunn, 1985
lidocaine loading dose IM 300 mg + IV 100mg
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarction within 6 hours of the onset of symptoDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1h for VT
immediate systematic ballon angioplastyte versus no immediate angioplasty
ECSG, 1988
angioplasty as soon as possible (after rtPA)
versus
non-invasive strategy without immediate CA and PTCA
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 5 h after onset of symptoms open
Follow-up duration: 1 y
Europe
Belenkie, 1991
immediate PTCA
versus
delayed PTCA (18-38h)
patients with a patent infarct-related artery after thrombolytic therapy suitable for angioplasty open
Follow-up duration: 4 months
Canada
Ellis, 1994
balloon angioplasty supplemented by further thrombolytic therapy as needed
versus
conservative therapy
patients with first anterior wall infarction treated with any accepted intravenous thrombolytic regimen and angiographically demonstrated to have an occluded infarct vessel within 8 hours of chest pain onset
Erbel, 1989
combined intravenous and intracoronary streptokinase with immediate coronary angioplasty
versus
combined intravenous and intracoronary streptokinase without immediate coronary angioplasty
patients with acute transmural myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 3 years
MERLIN (Sutton), 2004
emergency coronary angiography with rescue PCI
versus
conservative treatment
patients with STEMI and failed fibrinolysis
Follow-up duration: 30 days
SHOCK (Hochman), 1999
NCT00000552
emergency revascularization
versus
initial medical stabilization
patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute MIopen
Follow-up duration: 30 days (6y)
US
SWISS-SMASH, 1999
emergency angiography, followed immediately by revascularization when indicated
versus
initial medical management
Patients with acute myocardial infarction and early shock open
Follow-up duration: 30 days (1y)
Europe
TAMI 1 pilot, 1987
Angioplasty within 120 min (after rtPA)
versus
defered CA (7-10 days) and angioplasty if indicated
patients with acute myocardial infarction.open
Follow-up duration: in hospital
USA
TAMI-5 (Califf), 1991
immediate catheterization with angioplasty for failed thrombolysis (90min after rtPA/urokinase)
versus
deferred predischarge catheterization on days 5-10, no PTCA planned
patient with acute myocardial infarction
TIMI 2A, 1988
CA within 120 min of the start of the rtPA infusion. PTCA whether the artery is open or closed
versus
CA within 18-48hrs. PTCA only if artery open (TIMI 2 or 3)
patient thrombolyzed for a AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 21 days
USA
Topol, 1987
immediate PTCA
versus
no PTCA
patients with evolving transmural myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: in hospital
USA
Impella LP2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump
Seyfarth, 2008
Impella LP2.5
versus
intra-aortic balloon pump
patients with cardiogenic shock open
invasive strategy versus concervative strategy
DANAMI, 1997
invasive strategy of PTCA or CABG
versus
conservative strategy
patients who received thrombolytic treatment for a first acute myocardial infarction and with inducible myocardial ischemia (either symptomatic angina pectoris presenting spontaneously > 36 hours after admission or during a predischarge exercise test or ST changes during exercise compatible with ischemia)
Follow-up duration: 2.4y
isosorbide dinitrate versus placebo
Hildebrandt, 1992
titrated isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) for 48h
versus
placebo
patients with strong clinical and electrocardiographic suspicion of myocardial infarction within 8 hours after the onset of symptomsdouble blind
isosorbide mononitrate versus placebo
Fitzgerald, 1990
oral isosorbide 5-mononitrate (ISMN) for 5 days
versus
placebo
patients with suspected acute myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 mo
England
Hargreaves, 1992
20 mg of isosorbide mononitrate three times daily for 28 days
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction (systolic blood pressure > 90 mm Hg) within 24 hours of the start of paindouble blind
Follow-up duration: 28 days
ISIS-4, 1995
oral controlled-release mononitrate 30 mg initial dose titrated up to 60 mg once daily for 1 month
versus
placebo
patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction up to 24hdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5 weeks
worldwide
IV lidocaine infusion versus control
Bennett, 1970
lidocaine loading dose IV 60mg, infusion 0.5-1.0 mg/min
versus
no lidocaine
suspected acute myocardial infarctionOpen
Follow-up duration: 48h for VT
Pitt, 1971
lidocaine loading dose IV 75-100mg, infusion 2.5 mg/min
versus
no lidocaine
suspected acute myocardial infarctionOpen
Follow-up duration: 48h for VT
Darby, 1972
lidocaine loading dose IM 200 mg, infusion 2.0 mg/min
versus
no lidocaine
suspected acute myocardial infarctionOpen
Follow-up duration: 48h for VT
IV lidocaine infusion versus placebo
Kostuk and Beanlands, 0
lidocaine infusion 1.0 mg/min
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarctionDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 48h for VT
Baker, 1971
lidocaine infusion 1.5 mg/min
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarctionDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 48h for VT
Chopra, 1971
lidocaine loading dose IV 60mg, infusion 1.0-2.0 mg/min
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarctionDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 48h for VT
O, 0
lidocaine loading dose IV 75 mg, infusion 2.5 mg/min
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarctionDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 48h for VT
Lie (IV), 1974
lidocaine loading dose IV 100 mg, infusion 3,0 mg/min
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarctionDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 48h for VT
Wyse, 1988
lidocaine loading dose IV 100mg + IV l00 mg, infusion 3.0 mg/min
versus
placebo
suspected acute myocardial infarctionDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 24h for VT
Labetalol versus placebo
Heber , 1987
Labetalol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
control
patients with suspected myocardial infarction No
Follow-up duration: 1 year
lanoteplase versus accelerated t-PA
InTIME-II, 2000
lanoteplase 120 KU. kg(-1) as a single intravenous bolus
versus
up to 100 mg accelerated alteplase given over 90 min
patients presenting within 6 h of onset of ST elevation acute myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
worldwide
late PTCA versus no PTCA
Horie et al, 1998
late revascularization by primary PTCA
versus
no PTCA
patients with initial Q-wave anterior myocardial infarction >24 hours after onset
Follow-up duration: 50 months, mean
TOAT, 2002
late revascularization (late intervention and stent to the LAD + medical therapy)
versus
conservative therapy (medical therapy)
symptom-free patients after acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 12 months, fixed
TOMIIS, 1994
late PTCA
versus
no PTCA
patients with a recent, first Q-wave myocardial infarction and an occluded infarct-related coronary artery open
Follow-up duration: 4 months, fixed
DECOPI, 2004
percutaneous revascularization carried out 2-15 days after symptom onset
versus
medical treatment
patients with a first Q-wave myocardial infarction and an occluded infarct vessel open
Follow-up duration: 34 months, mean
Silva et al, 2005
percutaneous coronary intervention
versus
conservative therapy (no-PCI)
patients with occluded infarct-related artery between 12 h and 14 days post-anterior MI were open
Follow-up duration: 6 months, fixed
OAT, 2006
routine PCI and stenting
versus
optimal medical therapy alone
stable patients who had total occlusion of the infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after myocardial infarction and who met a high-risk criterion (open
Follow-up duration: 35 months, mean
TOSCA-2, 2006
NCT00025766
PCI with stenting
versus
optimal medical therapy alone
patients with an occluded native infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after MI open
Follow-up duration: 12 months, fixed
lisinopril versus placebo
GISSI 3, 1994
lisinopril (5 mg initial dose and then 10 mg daily) for 42 days
versus
open control
Acute MI <24h of MIopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Italy
Losartan versus Captopril
OPTIMAAL, 2002
Losartan, target dose of 50 mg daily
versus
Captopril, traget dose of 50 mg 3 times daily
patients within 10 days of a confirmed acute myocardial infarction and heart failure during the acute phase or a new Q-wave anterior infarction or reinfarction Double blind
Follow-up duration: 2.7 y
magnesium versus control
ISIS-4, 1995
24 h of intravenous magnesium sulphate (8 mmol initial bonus injection over about 15 minutes followed by 72 mmol in about 50 mLinfused over 24 h)4
versus
no magnesium infusion
patients entering 1086 hospitals up to 24 h (median 8 h) after the onset of suspected acute myocardial infarction with no clear contraindications4open
Wu, 1992
2.5 g MgSO4 once or twice a day for 7-14 dayssce
versus
usual care
suspected AMIdouble blind
Zhu, 2002
100 mL (4 g) potassium-magnesium aspartate IV. for the first day, 50 ml for rest 4 datio
versus
routine AMI treatmentƒkB
AMIopen
magnesium versus placebo
Abraham, 1987
2.4g of magnesium sulfate in 50 ml of 5% glucose solution intravenously over a 20 minutes period for 3 days
versus
50 ml of 5% glucose solution alone, imag
patients with AMIdouble blind
MAGIC, 2000
NCT00000610
2 g intravenous bolus of MgSO4 over 15 minutes, followed by a 17 g infusion of MgSO4 over 24 h
versus
matched intravenous bolus and 24 h infusion of sterile waterndºã
AMi patients within 6 h of onset of symptomsmdouble blind
Bhargava, 1995
8 mmol magnesium sulphate over 5 min followed by 65 mmol over 24-h infusion
versus
isotonic saline infusion
proven AMI patients with chest pain of 1-6hdouble blind
Ceremuzynski, 1989
8 g MgSO4 in 500 mL 15% glucose for 24 h intravenouslypj
versus
conventional treatmenton
patients with AMI within 12 h from onset of symptomslypjNA
Chen, 1991
MgSO4 2g/day for 3 daysn
versus
5% glucose
patients with AMIopen blind assessor
Feldstedt, 1991
continuous infusion of 80 mmol magnesium chloride in 1000 mL dextrose˜K
versus
matching placebo
patients, aged 75 y or less, with suspected AMI less than 8 h+—²double blind
Gyamlani, 2000
magnesium 12g (50 mmol) in the first 24h, 3g (12 mmol) in the second 24h used within 2h after admission and within 30 minutes of thrombolytic therapy™
versus
equal volume of isotonic glucose
patients with proven AMIdouble blind
Ising, 1990
81 mval/daymagnesium sulphate infusion 13+/-9h after the onset of severe pain for 3 days
versus
80 mval/day NaCl infusion for 3 daysimag
patients with AMIopen
Morton, 1984
36 h intravenous infusion of magnesium sulphate (0.75 mEq/kg/body weight/12 h).
versus
saline solution infusion
patients with AMI within 8 h of onsetmagdouble blind
Nakashima, 2004
bolus injection of 8 mmol of magnesium followed by an infusion of 24 mmol over 24 h
versus
equivalent amount of normal saline, imag
patients with successful PCI weree, imagdouble blind
Parikka, 1990
8mmol MgSO4 in 10 min, 62 mmol in 24hmag
versus
NaCl ¯B
patients with < 12 h from onset of chest pain AMImage/pjdouble blind
Raghu, 1999
18 g (75.6 mmol) of Mg sulphate over 24 h started immediately after completion of thrombolytic therapy
versus
equivalent amount of salinexbitm
confirmed AMI < 6 h from the onset of symptomscedouble blind
Rasmussen, 1986
50 mmol MgCl2 during the first 24 h, 12 mmol during the second 24 h
versus
isotonic glucose
patients with suspected AMIxbitmdouble blind
Santoro, 2000
MgSO4 7 g (28 mmol) with 5 hon
versus
matching saline solution
double blind
Shechter, 1990
magnesium 22 g (91.6 mmol) within 48 h (67 mmol within first 24 h).
versus
isotonic glucose.
patients with admission diagnosis of AMIdouble blind
Shechter, 1991
22 g (91.6 mmol) within 48 h (67 mmol within first 24 h).
versus
isotonic glucose.
patients with documented AMIbitmdouble blind
Shechter, 1995
magnesium 22 g (91.6mmol) within 48 h (67mmol within first 24 h)pj
versus
isotonic glucose
suspected with AMI and considered unsuitable candidates for thrombolysisdouble blind
Singh, 1990
5 g (8.12 mmol) of MgSO4 daily for 4 daysptomsce
versus
2% dextrose solution for 3 daysm
patients suspected with AMI within 8-12h of the onset of MIdouble blind
Smith, 1986
65 mmol MgSO4 given over 24 h
versus
Saline
patients with suspected AMI h.tmdouble blind
Thogersen, 1995
magensium 50 mmol within 24 h
versus
isotonic NaCl.
patients with suspected AMIdouble blind
Urek, 1996
17 g MgSO4 with first 24 h.xbitm
versus
saline.
patients with documented AMIbitmdouble blind
Woods, 1992
magnesium 8 mmol over 5 min, 65 mmol over 24h imag
versus
physiological saline hon
patients with suspected AMI in the preceding 24hdouble blind
Metoprolol versus placebo
LIT Research Group , 1987
Metoprolol 100 mg bid
versus
placebo
patients, 45 to 74 yearsof age, surviving a recent acute MIDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 18 months
USA
Hjalmarson , 1981
Metoprolol 100mg twice daily (initial dose intravenously)
versus
placebo
patients aged between 40 -74 years with suspected MI and onset of infarction within the previous 48hDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Sweden
Manger Cats , 1983
Metoprolol 100mg twice daily
versus
placebo
MI, NYHA Class I or II and <=70 yDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Netherlands
Rehnqvist , 1983
Metoprolol 100mg twice daily
versus
placebo
AMI patients <70 years in sinus rythm without complete BBBDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 36 months
Sweden
Salathia , 1985
Metoprolol 100 mg twice daily for one year (initial dose intravenously)
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
UK
misc. versus control
Gent-AMI, 1968
D400
versus

Follow-up duration: 28d
Johannessen, 1989
A150 + D225
versus

Follow-up duration: 14d
molsidomine versus placebo
Beaufils, 1988
molsidomine for 10 days
versus
placebo
patients with a first myocardial infarction within 6 hours from onset of symptomsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 10 days
France
ESPRIM, 1994
linsidomine 1 mg/h intravenously for 48 h, followed by 16 mg molsidomine by mouth daily for 12 days
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 24 h of symptom onsetdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 13 mo
Worldwide
moricizine versus placebo
CAST II (early treatment), 1992
moricizine for 14 days
versus
placebo
acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 14 days
nifedipine versus placebo
SPRINT II, 1993
Nifedipine 20mgx3 started within 3hr of hopsital admission for 6 months
versus
placebo
men and women with suspected acute MIDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Israel
Sirnes, 1984
Nifedipine 5x10mg
versus
placebo
patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 42 days
Gottlieb, 1988
Nifedipine 10 to 30mgx4
versus
placebo
double blind
Follow-up duration: 42 days
Eisenberg, 1985
Nifedipine 20mgx4
versus
placebo
patients with nontransmural myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 days
Bradagan, 1986
Nifedipine 10mgx4
versus
placebo
patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction within 6hrsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 days
Loogna, 1985
Nifedipine 4x10mg
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 6 h from onset of symptomsdouble blind
TRENT (Wilcox), 1986
Nifedipine 4x10mg
versus
placebo
patients with suspected myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 28 days
Walker, 1988
Nifedipine 6x10mg for 48hrs
versus
placebo
patients with suspected myocardial infarction within six hours from the onset of chest paindouble blind
Jaffe, 1987
Nifedipine 6x20mg
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction single blind
Follow-up duration: 7 days
Erbel, 1988
Nifedipine 20mgx3
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
SPRINT I, 1988
Nifedipine 10mgx3
versus
placebo
patient surviving MI 7 and 21 days after admissionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Israel
nitroglycerin versus control
Jugdutt, 1988
intravenous nitroglycerin
versus
control
acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 12 mo
Bussman, 1981
i.v. nitroglycerin for 48 hours
versus
no i.v. nitroglycerin
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 24 hoursopen
Follow-up duration: 18 months
Germany
Chiche, 1979
Nitroglycerin IV for 7 days
versus
placebo
patients with suspected myocardial infarction, within 12 h of the onsetsingle blind
Follow-up duration: in hospital (28d)
France
GISSI-3, 1994
nitrates intravenous for the first 24 h followed by transdermal transdermal glyceryl trinitrate nitrates 10 mg daily
versus
control
patients with acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 6 week
Jugdutt, 1983
Intravenous nitroglycerin
versus
control
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 3 months
Nelson, 1983
intravenous isosorbide dinitrate (50-200 micrograms/kg/h)
versus
frusemide (1 mg/kg)
men with radiographic and haemodynamic evidence of left ventricular failure following acute myocardial infarctionsingle blind
Follow-up duration: in hospital
nitroglycerin versus placebo
Charvat, 1990
intravenous nitroglycerin for 48h
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction and ST segment elevation on admission but no Q wave in the infarcted area within 6 hours of onsetdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 72 hours
Kuwait
Flaherty, 1983
Nitroglycerin for 48h
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarctionsingle blind
Follow-up duration: 15 months
US
Jaffe, 1983
glyceryl trinitrate titrated
versus
placebo
patients with inferior infarction under conventional clinical conditions within 10 hours of the onset of symptomsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: in hospital
Lis, 1984
48-h intravenous infusion of nitroglycer
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4 months
nitroprusside versus control
Hockings, 1981
nitroprusside
versus
furosemide
patients with a mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure of more than 20 mm Hg within 24 hours of acute infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
nitroprusside versus placebo
Cohn, 1982
48-hour infusion of sodium nitroprusside
versus
placebo
men with presumed acute myocardial infarction and left ventricular filling pressure of at least 12 mm Hg double blind
Follow-up duration: 3 months
US
Durrer, 1982
sodium nitroprusside by intravenous infusion during the first 25 h and followed by oral isosorbide
versus
infusion of 5 per cent glucose
patients with typical acute myocardial infarctionsingle blind
Follow-up duration: 1 months
Netherlands
Oxprenolol versus placebo
CPRG , 1981
Oxprenolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 8 weeks
EIS , 1984
Oxprenolol slow release 160 mg b.i.d.
versus
placebo
patients 35 to 69 years whohas survived acute myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Europe
Fuccella , 1968
Oxprenolol
versus
Unclear
Follow-up duration: 21 days
Lombardo , 1979
Oxprenolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 20 days
Schwartz (high risk and low risk) , 1992
Oxprenolol 160mg daily
versus
placebo
patients surviving MI with or without complication by either ventricular tachycardia or fibrillationDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 22 months (at least 6mo)
Italy
Taylor , 1982
Oxprenolol 40mg twice daily
versus
placebo
Men 35 to 65 years old who had an acute myocardial infarction between 1 and 90 months reviouslyDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 48 months
UK
Wilcox , 1980
Oxprenolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 6 weeks
oxygen therapy versus control
Rawles, 1976
oxygen administered by MC mask throughout the first 24 hours
versus
air
myocardial infarction
Ukholkina, 2005
oxygenotherapy
versus
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Wilson, 1997
oxygen therapy
versus
control
patients presenting within 24 hours of onset of myocardial infarction
paclitaxel eluting stent versus bare-metal stent
HAAMU-STENT, 2006
Taxus Express
versus
Bare-metal-stent
AMI - STEMI patients undergoing PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Finland
HORIZONS-AMI Stent, 2008
paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus)
versus
BMS (Express)
ST-elevation myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 1 year
PASSION, 2006
ISRCTN65027270
Taxus Express2
versus
Express2 or Liberté
Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevationopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months (5y)
The Netherlands
pexelizumab versus placebo
APEX-AMI, 2007
NCT00091637
pexelizumab given as a 2-mg/kg intravenous bolus prior to PCI followed by 0.05-mg/kg per hour infusion over the subsequent 24 hours
versus
placebo
primary angioplasty fo high risk STEMIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
17 countries
COMMA, 2003
pexelizumab 2.0-mg/kg bolus and 0.05-mg/kg per h infusion for 20 hours
versus
placebo
patients with MI double blind
COMPLY, 2003
pexelizumab 2.0-mg/kg bolus plus 0.05 mg/kg per h for 20 hours
versus
placebo
patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction receiving fibrinolysisdouble blind
phenprocoumon versus aspirin
German-Austrian Study Group (oac vs asp), 1980
phenprocoumon
versus
aspirin 1.5 g daily
patients who had survived a myocardial infarction for 30-42 daysdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
phenprocoumon versus placebo
German-Austrian Study Group (oac vs pbo), 1980
phenprocoumon
versus
placebo
patients who had survived a myocardial infarction for 30-42 daysdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Pindolol versus placebo
Australian and Swedish study, 1983
Pindolol 15 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients who had electrical and/or mechanical complications after an acute myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Sweden & Australia
Owensby , 1984
Pindolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
No
Follow-up duration: 3 days
Practolol versus placebo
Johansson , 1980
Practolol (initial dose intravenously) then atenolol
versus
Single
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Multicentre international , 1975
Practolol 200mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patients recovering from acute myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months, up to 24 months
UK and overseas
Evemy , 1978
Practolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
No
Follow-up duration: 7 months
Macleod , 1980
Practolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
Unclear
Follow-up duration: 1 week
Snow , 1980
Practolol
versus
Unclear
Follow-up duration: Short term
Thompson , 1979
Practolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Practololormetoprolol versus placebo
Waagstein , 1975
Practolol, (initial dose intravenously) H87/07, or metoprolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 1 week
Prehospital thrombolysis versus at hospital thrombolysis
EMIP, 1993
anistreplase by mobile intensive care unit
versus
ND
Follow-up duration: ND
GREAT, 1994
anistreplase by general practitioner
versus
ND
Follow-up duration: ND
MITI, 1993
NCT00000468
rt-PA by paramedics
versus
ND
Follow-up duration: ND
Roth, 1990
rt-PA by mobile intensive care unit
versus
Barbash, 1990

versus
Castaigne, 1987

versus
Mcneill, 1989

versus
Schofer, 1990
urokinase by mobile intensive care unit
versus
Castaigne , 1989
anistreplase by mobile intensive care unit
versus
TEAHAT, 1990

versus
ND
Follow-up duration: ND
primary angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis
MAASTRICHT (Vermeer), 1999
Transfer for primary PTCA
versus
immediate thrombolysis with tPA
patients with acute myocardial infarction initially admitted to a hospital without PTCA facilitiesopen
PRAGUE-1, 2000
immediate transportation for primary angioplasty without pre-treatment with thrombolysis
versus
immediate thrombolysis with streptokinase
patients with acute myocardial infarction, presenting within 6 h of symptom onset at community hospitals without a catheterization laboratoryopen
Follow-up duration: 30 days
AIR-PAMI, 2002
Transfer for Primary Angioplasty
versus
immediate thrombolysis (various thrombolytic)
Patients with high-risk AMI (age >70 years, anterior MI, Killip class II/III, heart rate >100 beats/min or systolic BP <100 mm Hg), eligible for thrombolytic therapy open
CAPTIM, 2002
Transfer for Primary Angioplasty
versus
prehospital fibrinolysis with accelerated alteplase
patients within 6 h of acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation, initially managed by mobile emergency-care unitsopen
DANAMI-2, 2003
Transfer for Primary Angioplasty
versus
immediate thrombolysis with tPA (accelared infusion)
patients with myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevationopen
Follow-up duration: 30 days
PRAGUE-2, 2003
immediate transport for primary percutaneous coronary intervention
versus
immediate thrombolysis with streptokinase
patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction presenting within <12 h to the nearest community hospital without a catheter laboratoryopen
Follow-up duration: 30 days
primary ballon angioplasty versus accelerated t-PA
Ribichini, 1996
primary PTCA
versus
accelerated alteplase 90 min (15 mg IV bolus followed by an infusion of 0.75 mg/kg over 30min not to exceed 50mg, and then 0.5 mg/kg over the next 60min not to exceed 35mg for a total maximun of 100mg)
open
Follow-up duration: discharge
Italy
Garcia, 1997
primary PTCA
versus
accelerated t-PA 90 min (15 mg IV bolus followed by an infusion of 0.75 mg/kg over 30min not to exceed 50mg, and then 0.5 mg/kg over the next 60min not to exceed 35mg for a total maximun of 100mg)
patients with anterior AMI open
Follow-up duration: 30 d
Spain
GUSTO 2B, 1997
primary PTCA
versus
accelerated t-PA 90 min (15 mg IV bolus followed by an infusion of 0.75 mg/kg over 30min not to exceed 50mg, and then 0.5 mg/kg over the next 60min not to exceed 35mg for a total maximun of 100mg)
patients within 12 hours of acute myocardial infarction (with ST-segment elevation on the electrocardiogram)open
Follow-up duration: 30 d
USA, Europe, Australia
DANAMI-2, 1997
angioplasty
versus
accelerated treatment with intravenous alteplase
patients who received thrombolytic treatment for a first acute myocardial infarction and with inducible myocardial ischemia (either symptomatic angina pectoris presenting spontaneously > 36 hours after admission or during a predischarge exercise test or ST changes during exercise compatible with ischemia)open
Follow-up duration: 2.4y
primary ballon angioplasty versus duteplase
DeWood, 1989
primary PTCA
versus
duteplase 0.5 MU/kg for 1 h then 0.7 MU/kg/h for 3h
open
Follow-up duration: 30 d
USA
Gibbons, 1993
primary PTCA
versus
duteplase 0.6 MU/kg over 5h
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: discharge
USA
primary ballon angioplasty versus intracoronary streptokinase
O'Neill, 1986
coronary angioplasty
versus
intracoronary streptokinase
patients within 12 hours of their first symptoms of acute myocardial infarction open
primary ballon angioplasty versus streptokinase
Zwolle, 1994
primary PTCA
versus
streptokinase 1.5 M IU over 1h
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: discharge
The Netherland
Ribeiro, 1993
primary PTCA
versus
streptokinase 1.2 M IU over 1h
patients with ST segment elevation within 6 h of the onset of chest painopen
Follow-up duration: discharge
Brazil
Grinfeld, 1996
primary PTCA
versus
streptokinase 1.5 M IU over 1h
open
Follow-up duration: 30 d
Argentina
Zijlstra, 1997
primary PTCA
versus
streptokinase 1.5 M IU over 1h
atients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
The Netherland
Zijlstra , 1993
immediate coronary angioplasty (without previous thrombolytic therapy)
versus
intravenous streptokinase
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Akhras, 1997
primary angioplasty
versus
streptokinase
patient within 12hr from onset of AMIopen
Saudi Arabia
primary ballon angioplasty versus t-PA
PAMI, 1993
primary PTCA
versus
t-PA 100mg (or 1.25mg/kg for patients weighting less than 65kg) over 3 h
patients who presented within 12 hours of the onset of myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: discharge
USA,Europe
primary ballon angioplasty versus tenecteplase
TRIANA, 2009
NCT00257309
Tenecteplase + UFH (+/- clopidogrel)
versus
Primary angioplasty
>=75 years old with ST-segment elevation or LBBB AMI <6 hours of evolution without contraindications for thrombolytic therapy open
Follow-up duration: 30 days (12 months)
primary PCI versus accelerated t-PA
C-PORT, 2002
primary PCI without on-site cardiac surgery
versus
accelerated tissue plasminogen activator
thrombolytic-eligible patients with acute MI of less than 12 hours' duration associated with ST-segment elevation open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
USA
primary PCI versus Thrombolysis
senior PAMI, 2005
NCT00136929
primary percutaneous coronary intervention
versus
intravenous thrombolytic therapy
elderly (age >= 70 years) patients with acute myocardial infarctionOpen
Follow-up duration: 30 days
primary stenting versus accelerated t-PA
STAT, 2001
primary stenting
versus
accelerated t-PA
patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty
Zwolle 5 (Suryapranata), 1998
Stent Palmaz-Schatz
versus
balloon angioplasty
Patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
FRESCO, 1998
elective stenting after successful primary PTCA
versus
no further intervention after successful primary PTCA
patient with successful primary PTCAopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
GRAMI (Rodriguez), 1998
balloon angioplasty followed electively with Gianturco Roubin II stents
versus
conventional balloon angioplasty
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours after onset open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
PASTA (Saito), 1999
Stent Palmaz-Schatz
versus
primary balloon angioplasty
patients with AMI within 12 hr from onset open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
stent-PAMI (Grines), 1999
angioplasty with Stent Heparin-coated
versus
angioplasty alone
patients with acute myocardial infarction and with vessels suitable for stentingopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
STENTIM-2 (Maillard), 2000
systematic stenting with Stent Wiktor
versus
conventional balloon angioplasty
patients with AMI <12 h from symptom onset, with an occluded native coronary arteryopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
PSSAAMI (Scheller), 2001
Stent Wiktor GX
versus
primary angioplasty
patients within 24 hours after the onset of acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 24 months
Jaksch, 1998
Various stent
versus
open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
PRISAM (Kawashima), 1999
Stent Palmaz-Schatz
versus
open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
CADILLAC (no abciximab), 2002
stenting alone with the MultiLink stent
versus
PTCA alone
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
CADILLAC abciximab., 2002
stenting plus abciximab therapy
versus
PTCA plus abciximab therapy
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
ZWOLLE 6, 2005
stenting
versus
balloon angioplasty
unselected patients with STEMIopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
STOPAMI 3, 2004
coronary artery stenting
versus
PTCA
patients with AMI ineligible for thrombolysis (lack of ST-segment elevation on the electrocardiogram, late presentation >12 h after symptom onset, and contraindications to thrombolysis)open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
primary stenting versus immediate thrombolysis
STOPAMI 2, 2002
stenting combined with abciximab
versus
fibrinolysis by alteplase combined with abciximab
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 12 h of onset of symptomsopen
Pronto versus conventional PCI
DEAR-MI, 2006
NCT00257153
Pronto
versus
primary percutaneous coronary intervention
patients with STEMI, admitted within 12 h of symptom onsetopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Propranolol versus control
Aronow , 1997
Propranolol 30 mg 3 times daily
versus
no propranolol
patients >=62 years of age with New York Heart Association functional class II or III CHF, prior Qwave myocardial infarction, and a LV ejection fraction <40% after 2 months of treatment with diuretics and ACE inhibitors
Follow-up duration: 1 year
USA
Propranolol versus placebo
Balcon , 1966
Propranolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 28 days
Barber , 1976
Propranolol
versus
No
Follow-up duration: 4 weeks
Hutton , 1979
Propranolol
versus
Unclear
Follow-up duration: 2 days
Clausen , 1966
Propranolol
versus
Unclear
Follow-up duration: 14 days
Baber , 1980
Propranolol 40 mg three times a day
versus
placebo
Men and women with anterior MI Double blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Europe
Curtis , 1991
Propranolol 240mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with recent infarction Double
Follow-up duration: 3.4 days
Dotremont , 1968
Propranolol
versus
No
Follow-up duration: 36 weeks
BHAT , 1982
NCT00000492
Propranolol 180 or 240 mg/day
versus
placebo
mean and women who has experienced at least one MIDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 25 months
USA
Hansteen , 1982
Propranolol 40mg four times a day
versus
placebo
high-risk patients who survived acute myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Norway
Gupta , 1982
Propranolol
versus
Unclear
Follow-up duration: Unclear
Gupta , 1984
Propranolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
No
Follow-up duration: 72 hours
Kahler , 1968
Propranolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: Up to 35 days
Ledwich , 1968
Propranolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 7 days
Mueller , 1980
Propranolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: To discharge
Multicentre , 1966
Propranolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 28 days
Nigam , 1983
Propranolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
Unclear
Follow-up duration: 1 week
Norris , 1968
Propranolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 3 weeks
Norris , 1978
Propranolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
No
Follow-up duration: To discharge
Norris , 1984
Propranolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
No
Follow-up duration: In hospital
Peter , 1978
Propranolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
No
Follow-up duration: To discharge
Pitt , 1976
Propranolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 14 days
Roberts , 1984
Propranolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
Single
Follow-up duration: 36 months
Singh , 1985
Propranolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
No
Follow-up duration: 60 hours
Sloman , 1967
Propranolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
No
Follow-up duration: To discharge
Propranolol or atenolol versus placebo
Wilcox , 1980
Propranolol 40 mg three times daily(initial dose intravenously) n=132 or atenolol 50 mg twice daily n=127
versus
placebo
patients with acute MI within the past 24 hoursDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
UK
ramipril versus placebo
AIRE, 1993
Ramipril 2·5 mg twice daily initial dose, up to 5 mg twice daily for at least 6 months
versus
placebo
patient within 3–10 days of a MI,with clinical evidence of heart failureDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1.25 y
14 countries
Wagner, 2002
2.5 mg ramipril orally prior to thrombolysis and 12 h later
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 7 days
recombinant human erythropoietin beta versus placebo
REVIVAL-3,
NCT00390832
recombinant human erythropoietin beta 33.333 IU given at 3 time points (immediately, 24 hours and 48 hours after percutaneous coronary intervention)
versus
placebo
patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary interventiondouble-blind
Germany
recombinant staphylokinase versus t-PA
STAR, 1995
recombinant staphylokinase (10 or 20 mg given intravenously over 30 minutes)
versus
weight-adjusted rt-PA over 90 minutes
patients with evolving myocardial infarction of < 6 hours' duration and with ST-segment elevation open
Follow-up duration: 90 min
Belgium
repeat fibrinolysis versus no repeat fibrinolysis
REACT (repeat fibrinolysis), 2005
repeated thrombolysis
versus
conservative treatment with unfractionated heparin for 24h
patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and failed reperfusion (less than 50 percent ST-segment resolution) within 90 minutes after thrombolytic treatment open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Sarullo, 2000
thrombolytic treatment (rTPA 50 mg), 10 mg as bolus plus 40 mg in 60 minutes
versus
placebo
patients with large AMI and failed thrombolysisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: in hospital
Mounsey, 1995
alteplase (tissue type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) 100 mg over three hours)
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction and electrocardiographic evidence of failed reperfusion
Follow-up duration: 6 weeks
Rescue versus conventional PCI
Dudek, 2004
Rescue (followed by stent implantation)
versus
PCI with stent implantation alone
patient with acute myocardial infarction with ST segment elevationopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Kaltoft, 2006
Rescue
versus
standard PCI
patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction lasting <12 hours undergoing primary PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
NONSTOP, 2004
Rescue
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: Hospital
rescue PTCA versus no rescue PTCA
Belenkie, 1992
rescue PTCA
versus
conservative treatment
patients with a persistently occluded infarct artery following thrombolytic therapy more than 3 h after symptom onset open
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Canda
REACT (rescue PCI), 2005
rescue PCI
versus
conservative treatment (with unfractionated heparin for 24 hours)
patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and failed reperfusion (less than 50 percent ST-segment resolution) within 90 minutes after thrombolytic treatmentopen
Follow-up duration: 6-month
MERLIN, 2004
emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue PCI
versus
conservative treatment
patients with STEMI and failed fibrinolysis
Follow-up duration: 30-day
RESCUE II, 2000
PCI
versus
conservative
patient with TIMI II flow after fibrinolytic therapy for moderate to large MI
Follow-up duration: 30-day
RESCUE, 1994
balloon angioplasty supplemented by further thrombolytic therapy as needed
versus
conservative therapy (aspirin, heparin, and coronary vasodilators)
patients with first anterior wall infarction and angiographically demonstrated occluded infarct vessel within 8 hours of chest pain onset after thrombolysis
Follow-up duration: 30-day
reteplase versus accelerated t-PA
GUSTO III, 1997
reteplase, in two bolus doses or 10 MU each given 30 minutes apart
versus
alteplase, up to 100 mg infused over a period of 90 minutes
patients within 6 hours after the onset of symptoms with ST-segment elevation or bundle-branch block open
Follow-up duration: 30 days
20 countries
RAPID-2, 1996
10 plus 10 megaunits double bolus of reteplase
versus
front-loaded alteplase
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 12h from onset of ischemic chest painopen
Follow-up duration: 35 days
USA, Germany
reteplase versus streptokinase
INJECT, 1995
Reteplase 2 bolus de 10 MU à 30 min d'intervalle
versus
Streptokinase 1.5 MU en IV en 60 min
patients with symptoms and electrocardiographic criteria consistent with acute myocardial infarction within 12 h from onset of symptoms double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 mo
Europe
Reviparin versus placebo
CREATE, 2005
Reviparin 3436–6871 IU BID for 7 d (weight adjusted)
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction, STEMI or new LBBB, <=12 hDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 30 d
saruplase versus streptokinase
COMPASS, 1998
saruplase 20-mg bolus and 60-mg infusion over 60 min
versus
streptokinase 1.5-MU infusion over 60 min
patients with symptoms compatible with those of acute myocardial infarction for < 6 hdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
PRIMI (vs SK), 1989
sarupalse 20 mg bolus followed by 60 mg infusion for 60 min
versus
1.5 million IU streptokinase infused over 60 min
patients with acute myocardial infarction were within 4 h of onset of symptoms double blind
Follow-up duration: ND
saruplase versus t-PA
SESAM, 1997
saruplase 80 mg/hour
versus
alteplase 100 mg every 3 hours
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Europe
saruplase versus urokinase
PRIMI (vs UK), 1989
20 mg bolus followed by 60 mg infusion for 60 min
versus
80 mg recombinant pro-urokinase
with a first acute myocardial infarction within 4 h of onset of symptoms double blind
sirolimus eluting stent versus bare-metal stent
DEBATER (SES vs BMS), 2009
sirolimus-eluting stents
versus
bare-metal stents
patients undergoing PCI for STEMI withon 12 hours
Follow-up duration: 1 y
Díaz de la Llera, 2007
sirolimus-eluting stents
versus
uncoated stents
primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevationopen
Follow-up duration: 1y
Spain
MISSION, 2008
ISRCTN62825862
Cypher
versus
Vision
primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (<9h)single-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
the Netherlands
SESAMI, 2007
NCT00288210
Cypher
versus
BX stent, Cordis
AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Italy
TYPHOON, 2006
NCT00232830
Cypher or CypherSelect
versus
any commerciallyavailable uncoated stent
AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Worldwide (15 countries)
sirolimus eluting stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent
Di Lorenzo et al., 2005
sirolimus
versus
paclitaxel
ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionopen
NA
Juwana, 2009
ISRCTN90526229
sirolimus coated Cypher stent
versus
paclitaxel coated Taxus stent
patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 9 months (12 months)
The Netherlands
PROSIT, 2006
SES Cordis
versus
PES Boston Scientific
AMI or persistent ischaemia 12-24hopen
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Korea
Sotalol versus placebo
Julian , 1982
Sotalol 320mg once daily
versus
placebo
patients surviving an acute myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
UK
Lloyd , 1988
Sotalol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
No
Follow-up duration: 72 hours
SpideRX versus conventional PCI
PREMIAR, 2007
SpideRX
versus
PCI without embolic protection
with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction at high risk of embolic events (including only baseline Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 0 to 2 flow)open
Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months
streptokinase versus placebo
EMERAS (7-12h), 1993
intravenous streptokinase 1.5 MU
versus
placebo
patients presenting 7-12 h from symptom onsetdouble blind
EMERAS (all delay), 1993
streptokinase 1.5 MU
versus
placebo
patients entering hospital up to 24 h after the onset of suspected acute myocardial infarctiondouble blind
south america
GISSI I, 1986
Streptokinase 1.5 MU en perfusion IV en 1 heure
versus
usual care
patients within 12 h after the onset of symptoms and with no contraindications to SK open
Follow-up duration: 1 y
ISAM, 1986
1.5 million IU of streptokinase over 1h
versus
Placebo
patients within six hours after the onset of symptoms of myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 21 days
ISIS 2 pilot, 1987
streptokinase 1.5 MU
versus
placebo
patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction double blind
ISIS-2 (SK), 1988
1-hour intravenous infusion of 1.5 MU of streptokinase
versus
Placebo
patients within 24h of the onset of suspected acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 15 mo
Western Washington Intravenous Trial, 1988
NCT00000507
Streptokinase en IV, 1.5 M UI en 60 min après injection de benadryl 50 mg en IV et hydrocortisone 100 mg en IV; héparine en IV 1000 UI/h 2h après la streptokinase puis warfarine pendant au moins 3 mois
versus
Traitement standard, avec ou sans anticoagulant (décidé par le médecin)
Hommes et femmes, < ou = 75 ans
Follow-up duration: 1.4 y
streptokinase versus primary intervention
SAMI (O’Neill), 1992
facilated PCI with streptokinase 1·5 million units(intravenous)
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <4h
Follow-up duration: In hospital
PRAGUE (Widimisky), 2000
facilated PCI with Streptokinase 1·5 million units (intravenous)
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <6h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
sulfinpyrazone versus control
Dutch sulphinpyrazone, 1986
S (W)
versus

Follow-up duration: 21d
sulfinpyrazone versus placebo
Wilcox, 1980
Sulphinpyrazone 200 mg four times daily
versus
placebo
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 10d
Louvain sulphinpyrazone, 1983
sulphinpyrazone, 4 x 200 mg daily for 7 days
versus
placebo
recent myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 7d
supersaturated oxygen versus control
AMIHOT II , 2000
NCT00175058
90-minute intracoronary supersaturated oxygen (SSO(2)) infusion in the left anterior descending artery infarct territory
versus
control
patients with anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention within 6 hours of symptom onset
AMIHOT, 2007
hyperoxemic reperfusion for 90 min using intracoronary aqueous oxygen
versus
normoxemic blood autoreperfusion
patients with acute anterior or large inferior AMI undergoing primary or rescue PCI (<24 h from symptom onset) and successful PCI
systematic ballon angioplasty versus no systematic angioplasty
SWIFT, 1991
CA 72h with a view to PTCA or CABG
versus
elective angioplasty (only if required by clinical indication)
patients presenting with clinical and electrocardiographic features of acute myocardial infarction up to three hours after the onset of major symptomsOpen
Follow-up duration: 1 y
UK
SIAM, 1992
CA with CABG/PTCA 14-48 hours
versus
no CA within the first 21days unless evidence of ischemia
patients treated by thrombolysis for AMIOpen
Follow-up duration: <3 years
Europe
TAMI 6, 1992
PTCA 6-24h after rtPA
versus
no PTCA planned
Barbash, 1990
PTCA>72h after rtPA if stenosis>70%
versus
PTCA>72h after rtPA if stenosis>50% and ischemia
Guerci, 1987
PTCA at 4 day
versus
no PTCA during the 10 days study period
patients candidate to PTCA determined at the 1st day CA
Follow-up duration: 10 days
United states
TIMI 2, 1989
CA 18 to 48 hrs
versus
no CA unless spontaneous or exercise induced ischemia
patients treated with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) within four hours of the onset of chest pain thought to be caused by myocardial infarctionOpen
Follow-up duration: 6 we
United states
TIMI II-A (defered), 0
delayed invasive strategy, deferred angiography and PTCA for 18-48 hours
versus
conservative approach
TOPS, 1992
PTCA to be performed 4-14 days after MI
versus
conservative management, no PTCA
patients with residual stenoses after thrombolytic treatment of myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Van den Brand, 1991
CA at 2-5 days, PTCA if suitable lesion
versus
CA at 2-5 days but no PTCA
suitable lesionNA
Follow-up duration: 3 mo
Europe
Vermeer, 1999
alteplase followed by transfer to the PTCA centre and (if indicated) rescue PTCA
versus
thrombolytic treatment with alteplase
patients with acute myocardial infarction initially admitted to a hospital without PTCA facilities
Follow-up duration: 42 days
systematic PCI (+stent) versus no systematic PCI
CAPITAL AMI, 2005
TNK-facilitated angioplasty
versus
TNK alone
patients with high-risk ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 6 months
GRACIA-1, 2004
angiography and intervention if indicated within 24 h of thrombolysis
versus
ischaemia-guided conservative approach
patients with thrombolysed STEMI (with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator)
Follow-up duration: 12 months
PRAGUE, 2000
thrombolysis during immediate transportation for coronary angioplasty
versus
thrombolysis in a community hospital
patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction presenting to community hospitals
Follow-up duration: 12 months
SIAM III, 2002
immediate stenting after thrombolysis
versus
conservative treatment
patients receiving thrombolysis in AMI (<12 h)
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Germany
WEST, 2006
TNK and mandatory invasive study <= 24 h, including rescue PCI for reperfusion failure
versus
tenecteplase (TNK) and usual care
STEMI patients (> 4 mm ST-elevation/deviation) within 6 h of symptom onse
Follow-up duration: 30 days
Canada
t-PA versus placebo
ASSET, 1988
rt-PA 100 mg
versus
Placebo
patient with suspected acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
LATE, 1993
intravenous alteplase (100 mg over 3 h)
versus
placebo
patients with symptoms and electrocardiographic criteria consistent with AMI between 6 and 24 h from symptom onsetdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 mo
TAMI 6, 1992
tissue-type plasminogen activator 100 mg over 2 hours
versus
placebo
patients with 6 to 24 hours of symptoms and ECG ST elevation double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
USA
t-PA versus streptokinase
International Study Group, 1990
tPA 100 mg en IV en 3 h (10 mg en bolus, puis 50 mg en 1 h, puis 20 mg/h pendant 2 h)
versus
Streptokinase 1.5 MU en IV de 30 à 60 min
patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction of less than 6 h duration double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 mo
Centre Illinois, 1993
t-PA 10 mg bolus, followed by 50 mg in the first hour, and 20 mg/hour for the next 2 hours
versus
SK 375 000 IU bolus, followed by 1 125 000 IU/1 hage/pj
patients with AMI within 3h from onset of chest painsingle blind
USA
Cherng, 1992
100 mg of rTPA over 3 hours (with early heparinization)
versus
1,500,000 units of streptokinase over 1 hour
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Taiwan
ECSG, 1985
0.75 mg rt-PA/kg over 90 min
versus
1 500 000 IU streptokinase over 60 min
patients with acute myocardial infarction of less than 6 h durationsingle-blind
Europe
GISSI II, 1990
alteplase 100 mg infused intravenously over 3 h
versus
streptokinase 1.5 MU infused intravenously over 30-60 min
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 6 h from onset of symptomsopen
Follow-up duration: 6 mo
International 14 countries
ISIS III (SK/tPA), 1992
Streptokinase 1.5 MU en IV d'une heure
versus
tPA 0.04 MU/kg en IV en bolus d'1 min, puis 0.36 MU/kg en 1 h, puis 0.067 MU/kg/h pendant 3 h
Hommes et femmesdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 mo
International 17 countries
PAIMS, 1989
intravenous cumulative dose of 100 mg rt-PA
versus
.5 million units streptokinase
patients with acute myocardial infarction less than 3 h oldopen
Italy
TIMI-1, 1987
NCT00000505
rt-PA, 40, 20, and 20 mg in successive hours
versus
SK 1.5 million units over 1 hr
patients with evolving acute myocardial infarction within 7 hr of the onset of symptoms double blind
USA
White, 1989
rt-PA 100 mg over three hours
versus
streptokinase 1.5 million units over 30 minutes
patients with AMIdouble blind
New Zealand
t-PA versus urokinase
TAMI 5 (t-PA vs uroK), 1991
accelerated t-PA 100mg over 3h
versus
urokinase IV bolus 1.5 MU followed by 1.5 MU over 90min
patient with acute myocardial infarctionopen
t-PA + streptokinase versus streptokinase
GUSTO tPA-SK Hiv, 1993
tPA en IV 1 mg/kg, sans dépasser 90 mg, dont 10 % en bolus + streptokinase 1 MU en 60 min + héparine en IV (5000 U en bolus, 1000 U/h (de préférence 1200 U/h si > 80 kg), poursuivi au moins 48 h)
versus
Streptokinase 1.5 MU en 60 min + héparine SC (12500 U 2 fois/j commencée 4h après thrombolytique) combiné à streptokinase (1.5 MU en 60 min) + héparine en IV (5000 U en bolus, puis 1000 U/h (1200 U/h si > 80 kg) poursuivi au moins 48 h)
Hommes et femmes
Follow-up duration: 30 d
International 15 countries
t-PA + urokinase versus t-PA
TAMI 5 (t-PA+uroK vs tPA), 1991
t-PA + urokinase
versus
t-PA
patient with acute myocardial infarction open
t-PA half dose versus t-PA
KAMIT, 1991
half-dose (50 mg) t-PA with streptokinase (1.5 MU) during 1 hour
versus
t-PA (100 mg) during 3 hours
patients within 6 hours of myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
USA
TandemHeart versus intra-aortic balloon pump
Thiele, 2005
TandemHeart
versus
intra-aortic balloon pump
patients in cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarctionopen
Burkhoff, 2006
TandemHeart
versus
intra-aortic balloon pump
patents within 24 hours of developing cardiogenic shock open
tenecteplase versus accelerated t-PA
ASSENT-2, 1999
Tenecteplase en IV bolus (dose en fonction du poids: 30 mg si < 60 kg; 35 mg si poids entre 60 et 69.9 kg; 40 mg pour les 80-89.9 kg; 50 mg si > ou = 90 kg
versus
Alteplase en IV, bolus de 15 mg, puis 0.75 mg/kg (sans dépasser 50 mg) en 30 min puis 0.50 mg/kg (sans dépasser 35 mg) en 60 min
patients with acute myocardial infarction of less than 6 h duration double blind
Follow-up duration: 30d
29 countries
tenecteplase versus primary intervention
GRACIA (Fernandez-Aviles,), 2004
facilated PCI with bodyweight-adjusted intravenous tenecteplase bolus: 30 mg of drug if bodyweight <60 kg, 35 mg if60–69 kg, 40 mg if 70–79 kg, 45 mg if 80–89 kg, and 50 mg if >=90 kg and Abciximab; 0·25 mg/kg intravenousbolus, 0·125 g/kg per min infusi
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <12h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
thrombectomy versus conventional PCI
Ciszewski, 2011
aspiration thrombectomy
versus
high risk patients with STEMI and angiographic evidence of thrombus
Liistro, 2009
thrombus-aspiration PCI
versus
patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
INFUSE AMI, 2013
manual thrombus aspiration
versus
patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction caused by proximal or mid left anterior descending artery occlusion undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin anticoagulation
Chao, 2008
initial thrombosuction
versus
STEMI patients within 12 h from onset
TROPHI,
thrombectomy
versus
thrombectomy versus PCI only
TASTE (Fröbert), 2013
NCT01093404
manual thrombus aspiration followed by PCI
versus
patients with STEMI undergoing PCI
TOTAL, 2015
NCT01149044
routine upfront manual thrombectomy
versus
PCI alone
patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI
thrombolysis + angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis
NORDISTEMI, 2009
NCT00161005
transfer for immediate coronary angiography and intervention
versus
concervative strategy
patients with STEMI of less than 6 hours of duration and more than 90 minutes expected time delay to PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 1y
Norway
CARESS, 2008
immediate transfer for PCI after half-dose reteplase, abciximab, heparin, and aspirin
versus
half-dose reteplase, abciximab, heparin, and aspirin, transfer for PCI only if they had persistent ST elevation at 90 minutes (rescue PCI)
STEMI patients under 75 years old within 12 hours of symptom onset who had been admitted to hospitals without PCI facilitiesopen
Follow-up duration: 30 days
France, Italy, and Poland
CAPITAL AMI, 2005
full-dose tenecteplase (TNK) plus PCI
versus
thrombolysis alone
high-risk MI patients within six hours of symptom onset open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
US
PRAGUE-1 (thrombolysis+PTCA), 2000
thrombolytic therapy during transportation to angioplasty
versus
immediate thrombolysis with streptokinase
patients with acute myocardial infarction, presenting within 6 h of symptom onset at community hospitals without a catheterization laboratory open
Follow-up duration: 30 days
Czech Republic
Tiapamil versus control
Eichler, 1985
Tiapamil 0.5-1 mg/kg plus 25mg/kg/min IV
versus
no treatment
double blind
ticlopidine versus control
Knudsen-A, 1985
ticlopidine 500mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with AMI double blind
Follow-up duration: 3m
Timolol versus placebo
Campbell , 1984
Timolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
Unclear
Follow-up duration: In hospital
Federman , 1984
Timolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
Unclear
Follow-up duration: 28 days
ICSG , 1984
Timolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
patients within four hours after onset of symptoms of myocardial infarction Double
Follow-up duration: To discharge
Norwegian Multicentre Study Group , 1981
Timolol 10mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patients surviving acute myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 17 months
Norway
Ranganathan , 1988
Timolol (initial dose intravenously)
versus
Double IV open orally
Follow-up duration: 28 days
Tonkin , 1981
Timolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 1 year
UKCSG , 1983
Timolol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: To discharge
Tirofiban versus primary intervention
On-Time (van’t Hof), 2004
facilated PCI with Tirofiban; 10 µg/kg intravenous bolus, 0·15 µg/kg per min infusion
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <6h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
TIGER-PA (Lee), 2003
facilated PCI with Tirofiban; 10 µg/kg intravenous bolus, 0·15 µg/kg per min infusion
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <12h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
Cutlip, 2003
facilated PCI with Tirofiban; 10 µg/kg intravenous bolus, 0·15 µg/kg per min infusion
versus
primary intervention
symptom duration <12h
Follow-up duration: 30-day
trandolapril versus placebo
TRACE, 1995
Trandolapril 1 mg daily initial dose, up to 4 mg daily
versus
placebo
patient within 3–7 days of a MI,Wall motion index <1·2 (LVEF <35%)Double blind
Follow-up duration: 3 y
Denmark
transfer for primary angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis
AIR-PAMI , 2002
Transfer for Primary Angioplasty
versus
immediate thrombolysis (various thrombolytic)
Patients with high-risk AMI (age >70 years, anterior MI, Killip class II/III, heart rate >100 beats/min or systolic BP <100 mm Hg), eligible for thrombolytic therapy open
DANAMI-2 , 2003
Transfer for Primary Angioplasty
versus
immediate thrombolysis with tPA (accelared infusion)
patients with myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevationopen
Follow-up duration: 30 days
PRAGUE-2 , 2003
immediate transport for primary percutaneous coronary intervention
versus
immediate thrombolysis with streptokinase
patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction presenting within <12 h to the nearest community hospital without a catheter laboratoryopen
Follow-up duration: 30 days
TVAC versus conventional PCI
VAMPIRE, 2004
TVAC
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 8 months
UFH versus no heparin
ISIS-2 Pilot, 1987
UFH nNo bolus, 1000 IU/h for 48 h
versus
No heparin
patients with suspected MI <=24 hopen
Follow-up duration: In-hospital, 1 y (deat
DUCCS, 1994
UFH no bolus, 15 IU/kg per h for 4 d; target aPTT 50–90 s
versus
No heparin
patients with acute myocardial infarction four hours after APSAC administration, age <=85 y STEMI <=12 hopen
Follow-up duration: 14 d
UFH versus placebo
ECSG, 1992
UFH 5000 IU bolus, UFH 1000 IU/h for 48–120 h
versus
Placebo
patients treated with alteplase thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction, Age 21–70 y STEMI <=6hDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: In-hospital
OSIRIS, 1992
UFH 10 000 IU bolus, 1000 IU/h for 24 h
versus
Placebo
STEMI w=6 hDouble-blind
Follow-up duration: In-hospital
urokinase versus control
USIM, 1991
urokinase bolus dose of 1 million U repeated after 60 minutes plus heparin
versus
control (heparin alone)
patients with acute myocardial infarction within 4 hours of the onset of pain open
Follow-up duration: in hospital
Italy
Valsartan versus Captopril
VALIANT (valsartan alone), 2003
Valsartan, 160 mg twice daily
versus
Captopril, 50 mg 3 times daily
patients within 10 days of a MI complicated by HFDouble blind
Follow-up duration: Median, 24.7 mo
24
Valsartan+ACE inhibitor versus ACE inhibitor only
VALIANT (valsartan+capropril), 2003
Valsartan, 40 mg twice daily, plus captopril, 25 mg three times daily
versus
Captopril, 25 mg 3 times daily
patients within 10 days of a MI complicated by HFDouble blind
Follow-up duration: Median, 24.7 mo
24
verapamil versus control
Bussman, 1984
Verapamil 5 to 10 mg/h IV
versus
no treatment
open
Follow-up duration: 2 days
verapamil versus placebo
DAVIT I, 1984
verapamil 120mgx3
versus
placebo
Double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Danish
Crea, 1985
verapamil 80mgx3
versus
placebo
patients admitted to the coronary care unit with transmural acute myocardial infarction single blind
Follow-up duration: 10 days
DAVIT II, 1990
verapamil 120mgx3 for 18 months
versus
placebo
patients <76years with diagnosis of acute MIDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 16 months
Danish
CRIS, 1996
verapamil retard 360 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients admitted for acute myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 23.5 months
Italy
Danish study, 1984
verapamil 0.1mg/kg IV plus 3x120mg orally
versus
placebo
patients under 75 years of age admitted to the CCU with a suspicion of acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Danish
warfarin versus aspirin
WARIS II (warfarin alone), 2002
warfarin target INR 2.8-4.2
versus
ASA 160mg/d
patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction NA
Follow-up duration: 48 months
Norway
warfarin versus control (on top of aspirin)
WARIS, 1999
warfarin 2.8–4.8
versus
placebo
survivors of acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 37 months
APRICOT-2, 2002
moderate-intensity coumarin target INR 2-3 (+aspirin)
versus
aspirin
Acute MI after thrombolytics open
Follow-up duration: 3 months
the Netherlands
CARS (warafrin 3mg), 1997
warfarin fixed dose 3mg/d + 80 mg ASA
versus
aspirin 160 mg/d
AMI double blind
Follow-up duration: 14 months
North America
CARS (warfarin 1mg), 1997
warfarin 1mg/d + aspirin 80mg/d
versus
aspirin 160 mg/d
patients who had had myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 14 months
North America
CHAMP, 2002
warfarin target INR 1.5-2.5 + aspirin 81 mg daily
versus
aspirin 162 mg/d
AMI (patients enrolled within 14 days of infarction)open
Follow-up duration: 2.7 years
US
LoWASA, 2004
warfarin fixed dose 1.25mg/d + ASA 75mg/d
versus
aspirin alone
AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 5 years
Sweden
WARIS II (warfarin+ASA), 2002
warfarin target INR 2-2.5 +ASA 75mg/d
versus
ASA 160mg/d
patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 4 years
Norway
Zibaeenezhad, 2004
Warfarin target INR 2–3 +aspirin
versus
aspirin 100 mg/day
Acute MIopen
Follow-up duration: 1 year
warfarin versus placebo (on top of aspirin)
Williams, 1997
warfarin target INR 2–2.5 +aspirin
versus
placebo +aspirin
Acute MI, unstable angina double blind
Follow-up duration: 2.5 months
X-sizer versus conventional PCI
Beran, 2002
X-sizer
versus
conventional PCI
patients with ACS and suspected intracoronary thrombusopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Napodano, 2003
X-sizer
versus
conventional strategy of stenting
patients with AMI and angiographic evidence of intraluminal thrombusopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
X AMINE ST, 2005
X-sizer
versus
standard PCI
patients with AMI <12 h and initial TIMI flow grade 0 to 1 and who were treated by PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months
Xamoterol versus placebo
McMurray , 1991
Xamoterol
versus
Double
Follow-up duration: 7 days
zofenopril versus placebo
SMILE, 1995
zofenopril initial dose 7.5 mg, up to a tagert dos eof 30mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patients within 24 hours after a acute anterior myocardial infarction who were not undergoing thrombolysisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Italy
zotarolimus eluting stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent
ZEST AMI (vs PES), 2009
NCT00422565
zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor)
versus
paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Liberté)
Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients (STEMI)requiring primary angioplasty with symptom onset <= 12 hours open
Follow-up duration: 1 year (mean)
Korea
zotarolimus eluting stent versus sirolimus eluting stent
ZEST AMI (vs SES), 2009
NCT00422565
zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor)
versus
sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher)
Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients (STEMI)requiring primary angioplasty with symptom onset <= 12 hours open
Follow-up duration: 1 year (mean)
Korea