Myocardial rupture epidemiology and demographics
Please help WikiDoc by adding more content here. It’s easy! Click here to learn about editing.
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-In-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]
Overview
The incidence of myocardial rupture has decreased in the era of urgent revascularization and aggressive pharmacological therapy for the treatment of an acute myocardial rupture. However, the decrease in the incidence of myocardial rupture is not uniform; there is a slight increase in the incidence of rupture if thrombolytic agents are used to abort a myocardial infarction.[1] On the other hand, if primary percutaneous coronary intervention is performed to abort the infarction, the incidence of rupture is significantly lowered.[2] The incidence of myocardial rupture if PCI is performed in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction is about 1 percent.[3]
References
- ↑ Becker RC, Gore JM, Lambrew C, Weaver WD, Rubison RM, French WJ, Tiefenbrunn AJ, Bowlby LJ, Rogers WJ. (1996). “A composite view of cardiac rupture in the United States National Registry of Myocardial Infarction”. J Am Coll Cardiol. 27 (6): 1321–6. PMID 8626938.
- ↑ Moreno R, Lopez-Sendon J, Garcia E, Perez de Isla L, Lopez de Sa E, Ortega A, Moreno M, Rubio R, Soriano J, Abeytua M, Garcia-Fernandez MA. (2002). “Primary angioplasty reduces the risk of left ventricular free wall rupture compared with thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction”. J Am Coll Cardiol. 39 (4): 598–603. PMID 11849857.
- ↑ Yip HK, Wu CJ, Chang HW, Wang CP, Cheng CI, Chua S, Chen MC. (2003). “Cardiac rupture complicating acute myocardial infarction in the direct percutaneous coronary intervention reperfusion era” (PDF). Chest. 124 (2): 565–71. PMID 12907544.
© 2026 MyEClinic – IFTM Institut für Telematik in der Medizin GmbH
