Skip Navigation

European Journal of Echocardiography 2004 5(2):149-155; doi:10.1016/S1525-2167(03)00074-X
© 2004 by European Society of Cardiology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Winter, R
Right arrow Articles by Willenheimer, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Winter, R
Right arrow Articles by Willenheimer, R
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2003, The European Society of Cardiology

The incremental value of myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) as a bedside decision-making tool in the coronary care unit

R Winter* and R Willenheimer

Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden

Received 4 March 2003; received in revised form 1 July 2003; accepted after revision 1 July 2003.

* Corresponding author. Department of Cardiology, Malmö University Hospital, S-205 02 Malmö, Sweden. Tel.: +46-40-33-10-00; fax: +46-40-33-62-09. reidar.winter@skane.se

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   1 Background
 
Patients with a developing acute myocardial infarction (MI) and ST elevation or bundle branch block should be treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or thrombolytic therapy, according to current guidelines. However, there are several problems in this context. In smaller hospitals, especially outside office hours, there is still a commonly limited access to PCI. Thrombolysis, on the other hand, should be used only according to strict criteria since it is associated with some risk.1,2 The choice of treatment is crucially important in this patient category, and can be challenging in some cases. One particular area of concern is the lack of consensus in the interpretation of ST elevations. This is illustrated by the considerable variability in assessment of ST elevation, demonstrated in a recent study by Carley et al.3 Moreover, the degree of ST elevation is not a very accurate measurement of the extent of the area at risk: . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   2 Case report
 

   3 Discussion
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?