Grant Proposa
l
Fibrinolytic vs. PCI therapy Grant Proposal
Francesca Tierney
UWF, College of Letters and Sciences, Biology Department, SAHLS
Health Science Research Seminar, HSC4050
James Hunt 11/16/2012
Executive Summary
Fibrinolytic therapy has been a significant means of establishing reperfusion in patients whom have had a myocardial infarction or some sort of blood clot. However, limitations to the use of thrombolytic therapy that must be taken in to account are intracranial bleeding, inability to start thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction flow in patients, and high percentage of recurrent ischemia and reocclusion. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become known as the ideal reperfusion strategy.
The proposed research will be a randomized controlled clinical trial study that will explore the roles of Fibrinolytic therapy vs. PCI in patients whom have received one of the two-reperfusion therapies, and examine the effects of each and symptoms caused. Additionally, therapy effects will be investigated for their potential to positively or negatively impact patient health, and efficiency of the procedure.
Statement of Need
Myocardial infarction also known as a heart attack, takes place when blood flow is interrupted to a part of your heart, allowing a blood clot to obstruct a coronary artery supplying blood to the heart and the heart muscle dies. Each year, the American Heart Association brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart attacks, and their risk factors. In 2010, the estimate on heart attacks in the U.S. is about $316 billion in order to provide health care, and medicines. A myocardial infarction is indeed one of the most serious illnesses in the world. In the United States alone, 785,000 people undergo their first heart attack and another 470,000 experience a second heart attack every year. With about 1.5 million people suffering from a heart
Fibrinolytic vs. PCI therapy Grant Proposal
Francesca Tierney
UWF, College of Letters and Sciences, Biology Department, SAHLS
Health Science Research Seminar, HSC4050
James Hunt 11/16/2012
Executive Summary
Fibrinolytic therapy has been a significant means of establishing reperfusion in patients whom have had a myocardial infarction or some sort of blood clot. However, limitations to the use of thrombolytic therapy that must be taken in to account are intracranial bleeding, inability to start thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction flow in patients, and high percentage of recurrent ischemia and reocclusion. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become known as the ideal reperfusion strategy.
The proposed research will be a randomized controlled clinical trial study that will explore the roles of Fibrinolytic therapy vs. PCI in patients whom have received one of the two-reperfusion therapies, and examine the effects of each and symptoms caused. Additionally, therapy effects will be investigated for their potential to positively or negatively impact patient health, and efficiency of the procedure.
Statement of Need
Myocardial infarction also known as a heart attack, takes place when blood flow is interrupted to a part of your heart, allowing a blood clot to obstruct a coronary artery supplying blood to the heart and the heart muscle dies. Each year, the American Heart Association brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart attacks, and their risk factors. In 2010, the estimate on heart attacks in the U.S. is about $316 billion in order to provide health care, and medicines. A myocardial infarction is indeed one of the most serious illnesses in the world. In the United States alone, 785,000 people undergo their first heart attack and another 470,000 experience a second heart attack every year. With about 1.5 million people suffering from a heart
References: Aversano T, Aversano LT, Passamani E, et al. Thrombolytic therapy vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction in patients presenting to hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002; 287: 1943–1951. Grines CL, Westerhausen DR, Grines LL, et al. A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 1713 Naik, Abhijit. "Heat Attack Statistics." Buzzle.com. Buzzle.com, 16 July 2010. . Simes RJ, Topol EJ, Holmes DR Jr, et al. Link between the angiographic sub study and mortality outcomes in a large randomized trial of myocardial reperfusion. Importance of early and complete infarct artery reperfusion. GUSTO-I Investigators. Circulation 1995; 91:1923. Stone GW, Marsalese D, Brodie BR, et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of prophylactic intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in high-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997; 29: 1459–1467. Weaver WD, Cerqueira M, Hallstrom AP, et al. Prehospital-initiated vs hospital-initiated Thrombolytic therapy. The Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Trial. JAMA 1993; 270:1211.