[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.166.74.94. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
June 1, 1994

Cardiovascular Disease

Author Affiliations

University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester; University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, Tucson

JAMA. 1994;271(21):1660-1661. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03510450032017
Abstract

No one can dispute that thrombolytic therapy saves lives. However, the question remains, which is the most cost-effective agent: streptokinase (SK) or tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA)? Several studies have suggested that t-PA is more effective than SK; however, given the fact that t-PA is nearly 10 times as expensive as SK, further clinical trials were performed to verify that t-PA is more effective. The results of the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) study, which were reported in the fall of 1993,1,2 strongly suggest that t-PA is more effective than SK. The GUSTO study enrolled 41 021 patients from 1081 hospitals in 15 countries and compared the following four treatment strategies for acute myocardial infarction (AMI): (1) SK plus subcutaneous heparin; (2) SK plus intravenous (IV) heparin; (3) combined t-PA, SK, and IV heparin; and (4) accelerated t-PA (administration of t-PA over

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×