Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Misrepresentation of the STEMI guidelines
  1. Ph Gabriel Steg1,
  2. Stefan K James2,
  3. Bernard J Gersh3
  1. 1Université Paris Diderot and Department of Cardiology, Hopital Bichat, AP-HP, Paris, France
  2. 2Department of Medical sciences, Cardiology and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  3. 3Division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo clinic and Mayo clinic college of medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Ph Gabriel Steg, Université Paris Diderot and Hopital Bichat, AP-HP, Paris 75018, France; gabriel.steg{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.

To the Editor We were surprised and disappointed to read the editorial by Terkelsen et al1 claiming that there is divergence between the 2012 European Society of Cardiology ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) guidelines2 and the evidence. The authors imply that the guidelines have distorted the evidence, particularly with respect to acceptable delays in delivering percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in order to favour prehospital thrombolysis over primary PCI as the recommended reperfusion strategy for STEMI, and that doing so will deprive patients from lifesaving treatment.

This is a complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the guidelines. First, the guidelines clearly favour primary PCI and state “Primary PCI (...) is the preferred reperfusion strategy in patients with STEMI”. Secondly, the guidelines do not suggest thrombolysis over PCI if the PCI delay is 60 min, but in fact state (in several locations) that a “PCI related delay of 120 min is useful in selecting primary PCI over immediate thrombolysis as the preferred mode of reperfusion”. This statement clearly reflects the choice of the committee to favour primary PCI for reperfusion and the fact that, contrary to the statement of Terkelsen et al, the guidelines do not “reduce the window …

View Full Text


  • Contributors PGS produced a first draft which was revised and edited by SKJ and BJG.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Point-Counterpoint
    Christian Juhl Terkelsen Duane S Pinto Holger Thiele Peter Clemmensen Kjell Nikus Jens Flensted Lassen David Hildick-Smith Evald Høj Christiansen Jens Aarøe Hans-Henrik Tilsted Hansen Goran Stankovic Anders Junker Georgios Sianos Göran Olivecrona Hans Erik Bøtker Charles Michael Gibson Eric Boersma
  • PostScript
    Christian Juhl Terkelsen Duane Pinto Peter Clemmensen Holger Thiele Jens Flensted Lassen Evald Høj Christiansen Hans-Henrik Tilsted Hansen Goran Stankovic Göran Olivecrona Anders Junker Hans Erik Bøtker Eric Boersma