These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Randomized, double-blind study comparing saruplase with streptokinase therapy in acute myocardial infarction: the COMPASS Equivalence Trial. Comparison Trial of Saruplase and Streptokinase (COMASS) Investigators.
    Author: Tebbe U, Michels R, Adgey J, Boland J, Caspi A, Charbonnier B, Windeler J, Barth H, Groves R, Hopkins GR, Fennell W, Betriu A, Ruda M, Mlczoch J.
    Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol; 1998 Mar 01; 31(3):487-93. PubMed ID: 9502624.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: This study sought to demonstrate the equivalence of saruplase and streptokinase in terms of 30-day mortality. BACKGROUND: The use of thrombolytic agents in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction is well established and has been shown to substantially reduce post-myocardial infarction mortality. METHODS: Three thousand eighty-nine patients with symptoms compatible with those of acute myocardial infarction for < 6 h entered the study at a total of 104 centers and were randomized to receive streptokinase (1.5-MU infusion over 60 min) or saruplase (20-mg bolus and 60-mg infusion over 60 min). In the saruplase group, a bolus of heparin (5,000 IU) was administered before saruplase, and a corresponding blinded double-dummy placebo bolus was administered before streptokinase. All patients received intravenous heparin infusions for > or = 24 h starting 30 min after the end of the thrombolytic infusions; the infusions were titrated to maintain an activated partial thromboplastin time at 1.5 to 2.5 times that of normal. RESULTS: Death of any cause up to 30 days after randomization occurred in 88 (5.7%) of 1,542 patients randomized to receive saruplase and 104 (6.7%) of 1,547 patients randomized to receive streptokinase (odds ratio 0.84, p < 0.01 for equivalence). Hemorrhagic strokes occurred more often in patients receiving saruplase (0.9% vs. 0.3%), whereas thromboembolic strokes were more prevalent in the streptokinase-treated patients (0.5% vs. 1.0%). The rate of bleeding was similar in the two treatment groups (10.4% vs. 10.9%). Hypotension and cardiogenic shock occurred less frequently in the saruplase group. Reinfarction rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Saruplase is a clinically safe and effective thrombolytic medication. This profile ranks saruplase favorably among the currently available thrombolytic agents.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]