Article Text

Download PDFPDF
A response to a misrepresentation of the STEMI guidelines: the response
  1. Christian Juhl Terkelsen1,
  2. Duane Pinto2,
  3. Peter Clemmensen3,
  4. Holger Thiele4,
  5. Jens Flensted Lassen1,
  6. Evald Høj Christiansen1,
  7. Hans-Henrik Tilsted Hansen5,
  8. Goran Stankovic6,
  9. Göran Olivecrona7,
  10. Anders Junker8,
  11. Hans Erik Bøtker1,
  12. Eric Boersma9
  1. 1Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital in Skejby, Aarhus, Denmark
  2. 2Department of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  3. 3Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
  4. 4Department of Internal Medicine Cardiology, University of Leipzig-Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany
  5. 5Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
  6. 6Department of Cardiology, Clinical Center of Serbia and Medical School of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
  7. 7Department of Cardiology, Skane University Hospital—Lund, Lund, Sweden
  8. 8Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
  9. 9Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christian Juhl Terkelsen, Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital in Skejby, Brendstrupgaardsvej 100, Aarhus DK8200, Denmark; christian_juhl_terkelsen{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The Authors’ reply We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the reply to the counterpoint of our editorial.1 ,2 Admittedly, the comments were edgy, but the content was intended to be a scientific exchange regarding the interpretation of the European Society of Cardiology guidelines based on the best available evidence. Our position stems, in part, from a more regional than perhaps international perspective where guidelines are read by lawyers and politicians, who sometimes interpret statements out of context. Our mission was simply to address a prevalent confusion regarding ‘Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)-related delay’ and point out that in some paragraphs of the comprehensive 2012 European Society of Cardiology ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) guidelines3 ‘PCI-related delay’ seems to be equated with ‘time from First Medical Contact (FMC) to Primary PCI (PPCI) delay’, since data addressing ‘PCI-related delay’ have been used to give recommendations concerning ‘FMC to PPCI delay’. In paragraph 3.5.2 the guidelines3 thoroughly discuss the paper by Pinto and colleagues4 (ref. 41 in the guidelines) and states: “Taking into account the …

View Full Text


  • Contributors CJT, HEB, PC and DP made the first draft of the comment. All other coauthors revised and accepted the paper for submission.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles