| 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 <6h | open 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 pain | open Follow-up duration: hospital stay US |
| Acebutolol versus placebo | |||
| APSI, 1990 | Acebutolol 200mg twice daily versus placebo | patient surviving MI at hight risk | Double 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 infarction | open 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 infarction | Double 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 infarction | Double 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 onset | open 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 onset | double 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 infarction | open Follow-up duration: 29 months (range 6-59) |
| any anticoagulant versus placebo | |||
| Sixty Plus reinfarction Study, 1980 | anticoagulant versus placebo | over 60 years of age | double 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 symptoms | open Follow-up duration: 3 weeks France |
| APSAC versus placebo | |||
| AIMS, 1988 | APSAC 30U IV in 5 min versus Placebo | Hommes et femmes, < 70 ans | double 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 symptoms | double 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 infarction | open 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 infarction | double blind Follow-up duration: 1m |
| ISIS-2, 1988 | 160 mg/day enteric-coated aspirin for one month versus placebo | suspected acute myocardial up to 24h | double blind Follow-up duration: 35d |
| Dutch-aspirin, 1990 | aspirin (100 mg/day) for 3 months versus placebo | patients with first anterior wall AMI | double 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 hours | double 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 infarction | No 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 days | double 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 infarction | open 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 intervention | open 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 infarction | open 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 angiography | open 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 STEMI | double 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 infarction | double 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 infarction | double 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 symptoms | double 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 MI | double 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 symptoms | double 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 failure | double 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 MI | double 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 failure | double 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 onset | double blind Follow-up duration: 1 year New Zealand |
| Mortarino, 1990 | Captopril 25 mg bid versus placebo | patient with mild congestive heart failure after recent MI | double 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 mmHg | double 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 pain | double 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 hypotension | double blind Follow-up duration: 1 month 31 countries |
| Nabel, 1991 | intravenous followed by oral captopril versus placebo | patients with myocardial infarction | double 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 dilatation | double 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 onset | double 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 angina | open 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 infarction | double 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 LBBB | Double-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 STEMI | Double-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 infarction | Double 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 infarction | open 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 infarction | open 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 onset | open 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 AMI | open 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, STEMI | Double-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 infarction | open 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 infarction | open 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 AMI | open 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 infarction | open Follow-up duration: 1,12 months Netherlands |
| facilitated stenting versus alteplase | |||
| STOPAMI 1, 2000 | stent plus abciximab versus intravenous alteplase | patients with acute myocardial infarction | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| FilterWire versus conventional PCI | |||
| PROMISE, 2005 | FilterWire versus control | patients with myocardial infarction with and without ST-segment elevation | open Follow-up duration: 1 month |
| UpFlow MI, 2007 | FilterWire versus PCI using regular guidewires | patients with STEMI and coronary angiographic evidence of thrombotic occlusion | open 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 PCI | open 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 symptoms | double 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 onset | double 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 abciximab | open 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 infarction | open Follow-up duration: 6 montsh |
| MAGIC 1 (Kang), 2007 | granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus control | patients with myocardial infarction | open 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 DES | open 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 AMI | open 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 intervention | open 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 infarction | double blind Follow-up duration: 1 months |
| G-CSF-STEMI (Engelmann), 2006 | granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus placebo | patients with late revascularized subacute STEMI | double 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 size | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months Germany |
| STEMMI (Ripa), 2006 | granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus placebo | patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Valgimigli, 2005 | granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus placebo | patients with STEMI | double 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 onset | open |
| 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 thrombolysis | open Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months |
| MICADO, 2007 | GuardWire versus PCI without distal protection | Patients with AMI within 24 hours from onset | open 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 intervention | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Tahk, 2008 | GuardWire versus primary angioplasty without distal protection | AMI patients presenting within 12 h of onset of symptoms | open 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 AMI | open 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<=0.30 | open 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 infarction | Single-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 infarction | Double-blind Follow-up duration: 4h for VT |
| Singh and Kocot, 1976 | lidocaine loading dose IM 4.5 mg/kg versus placebo | suspected acute myocardial infarction | Double-blind Follow-up duration: 3h for VT |
| Lie (IM), 1978 | lidocaine loading dose IM 300 mg versus placebo | suspected acute myocardial infarction | Double-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 sympto | Double-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 MI | open 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 AMI | open Follow-up duration: 21 days USA |
| Topol, 1987 | immediate PTCA versus no PTCA | patients with evolving transmural myocardial infarction | open 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 symptoms | double blind |
| isosorbide mononitrate versus placebo | |||
| Fitzgerald, 1990 | oral isosorbide 5-mononitrate (ISMN) for 5 days versus placebo | patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction | double 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 pain | double 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 24h | double 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 infarction | Open 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 infarction | Open 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 infarction | Open 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 infarction | Double-blind Follow-up duration: 48h for VT |
| Baker, 1971 | lidocaine infusion 1.5 mg/min versus placebo | suspected acute myocardial infarction | Double-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 infarction | Double-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 infarction | Double-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 infarction | Double-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 infarction | Double-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 infarction | double 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 MI | open 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 contraindications4 | open |
| Wu, 1992 | 2.5 g MgSO4 once or twice a day for 7-14 dayssce versus usual care | suspected AMI | double 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 | AMI | open |
| 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 AMI | double 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 symptomsm | double 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 1-6h | double 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 symptomslypj | NA |
| Chen, 1991 | MgSO4 2g/day for 3 daysn versus 5% glucose | patients with AMI | open 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+—² | double 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 AMI | double 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 AMI | open |
| 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 onsetmag | double 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, imag | double 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/pj | double 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 symptomsce | double blind |
| Rasmussen, 1986 | 50 mmol MgCl2 during the first 24 h, 12 mmol during the second 24 h versus isotonic glucose | patients with suspected AMIxbitm | double 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 AMI | double blind |
| Shechter, 1991 | 22 g (91.6 mmol) within 48 h (67 mmol within first 24 h). versus isotonic glucose. | patients with documented AMIbitm | double 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 thrombolysis | double 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 MI | double blind |
| Smith, 1986 | 65 mmol MgSO4 given over 24 h versus Saline | patients with suspected AMI h.tm | double blind |
| Thogersen, 1995 | magensium 50 mmol within 24 h versus isotonic NaCl. | patients with suspected AMI | double blind |
| Urek, 1996 | 17 g MgSO4 with first 24 h.xbitm versus saline. | patients with documented AMIbitm | double 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 24h | double blind |
| Metoprolol versus placebo | |||
| LIT Research Group , 1987 | Metoprolol 100 mg bid versus placebo | patients, 45 to 74 yearsof age, surviving a recent acute MI | Double 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 48h | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2 years Sweden |
| Manger Cats , 1983 | Metoprolol 100mg twice daily versus placebo | MI, NYHA Class I or II and <=70 y | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1 year Netherlands |
| Rehnqvist , 1983 | Metoprolol 100mg twice daily versus placebo | AMI patients <70 years in sinus rythm without complete BBB | Double 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 infarction | Double 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 symptoms | double 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 onset | double 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 MI | Double 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 infarction | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 days |
| Bradagan, 1986 | Nifedipine 10mgx4 versus placebo | patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction within 6hrs | double blind Follow-up duration: 2 days |
| Loogna, 1985 | Nifedipine 4x10mg versus placebo | patients with acute myocardial infarction within 6 h from onset of symptoms | double 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 pain | double 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 admission | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1 year Israel |
| nitroglycerin versus control | |||
| Jugdutt, 1988 | intravenous nitroglycerin versus control | acute myocardial infarction | open 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 hours | open 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 onset | single 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 infarction | open 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 infarction | single 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 onset | double blind Follow-up duration: 72 hours Kuwait |
| Flaherty, 1983 | Nitroglycerin for 48h versus placebo | patients with acute myocardial infarction | single 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 symptoms | double blind Follow-up duration: in hospital |
| Lis, 1984 | 48-h intravenous infusion of nitroglycer versus placebo | patients with acute myocardial infarction | double 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 infarction | open 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 infarction | single 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 infarction | Double 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 fibrillation | Double 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 reviously | Double 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 PCI | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Finland |
| HORIZONS-AMI Stent, 2008 | paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) versus BMS (Express) | ST-elevation myocardial infarction | open Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| PASSION, 2006 ISRCTN65027270 | Taxus Express2 versus Express2 or Liberté | Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation | open 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 STEMI | double 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 fibrinolysis | double 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 days | double 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 days | double 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 infarction | Double 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 infarction | Double 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 facilities | open |
| 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 laboratory | open 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 units | open |
| DANAMI-2, 2003 | Transfer for Primary Angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis with tPA (accelared infusion) | patients with myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation | open 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 laboratory | open 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 pain | open 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 AMI | open 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 infarction | Open 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 PTCA | open 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 stenting | open 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 artery | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| PSSAAMI (Scheller), 2001 | Stent Wiktor GX versus primary angioplasty | patients within 24 hours after the onset of acute myocardial infarction | open 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 STEMI | open 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 symptoms | open |
| Pronto versus conventional PCI | |||
| DEAR-MI, 2006 NCT00257153 | Pronto versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention | patients with STEMI, admitted within 12 h of symptom onset | open 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 MI | Double blind Follow-up duration: 25 months USA |
| Hansteen , 1982 | Propranolol 40mg four times a day versus placebo | high-risk patients who survived acute myocardial infarction | Double 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 hours | Double 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 failure | Double 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 infarction | double 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 intervention | double-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 thrombolysis | double 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 elevation | open Follow-up duration: hospital stay |
| Kaltoft, 2006 | Rescue versus standard PCI | patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction lasting <12 hours undergoing primary PCI | open 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 treatment | open 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 pain | open 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 h | Double-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 h | double 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 elevation | open 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 | AMI | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Italy |
| TYPHOON, 2006 NCT00232830 | Cypher or CypherSelect versus any commerciallyavailable uncoated stent | AMI | open 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 infarction | open NA |
| Juwana, 2009 ISRCTN90526229 | sirolimus coated Cypher stent versus paclitaxel coated Taxus stent | patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI | open Follow-up duration: 9 months (12 months) The Netherlands |
| PROSIT, 2006 | SES Cordis versus PES Boston Scientific | AMI or persistent ischaemia 12-24h | open Follow-up duration: 1 year Korea |
| Sotalol versus placebo | |||
| Julian , 1982 | Sotalol 320mg once daily versus placebo | patients surviving an acute myocardial infarction | Double 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 onset | double 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 infarction | double 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 infarction | double 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 symptoms | Open 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 AMI | Open 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 infarction | Open 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 lesion | NA 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 onset | double 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 pain | single 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 duration | single-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 symptoms | open 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 femmes | double 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 old | open 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 AMI | double 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 infarction | open |
| 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 infarction | open |
| 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 PCI | open 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 facilities | open 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 infarction | Double 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 elevation | open 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 laboratory | open 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 h | open 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 h | open 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 <=6h | Double-blind Follow-up duration: In-hospital |
| OSIRIS, 1992 | UFH 10 000 IU bolus, 1000 IU/h for 24 h versus Placebo | STEMI w=6 h | Double-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 HF | Double 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 HF | Double 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 MI | Double blind Follow-up duration: 16 months Danish |
| CRIS, 1996 | verapamil retard 360 mg daily versus placebo | patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction | Double 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 infarction | double 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 | AMI | open 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 infarction | open Follow-up duration: 4 years Norway |
| Zibaeenezhad, 2004 | Warfarin target INR 2–3 +aspirin versus aspirin 100 mg/day | Acute MI | open 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 thrombus | open Follow-up duration: 1 month |
| Napodano, 2003 | X-sizer versus conventional strategy of stenting | patients with AMI and angiographic evidence of intraluminal thrombus | open 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 PCI | open 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 thrombolysis | double 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 |
-
About
-
Browse pathology
|
treatment
-
Site map
-
Credits
Made with in Lyon
-
Contact us
-
Privacy policy
-
