{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010371650821089023, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00864304235090752, 'mean_word_length': 5.69364161849711, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Are the various thrombolytic agents equally effective in the treatment of acute transmural myocardial infarction?

While it is no longer possible to imagine the treatment of an acute transmural myocardial infarction without the use of thrombolytic agents, some discussion still exists as to the choice of the thrombolytic agent. Our study concerns a group of 160 patients with an acute transmural myocardial infarction, 60 of whom were treated with anistreplase, 52 with streptokinase and 48 with alteplase. Statistically, the administration of anistreplase was associated with a significantly higher frequency of ventricular arrhythmias in comparison to the other thrombolytic agents, whereas after subsequent coronary angiography, the anistreplase group revealed a significantly lower number of completely occluded coronary arteries. The data from this study demonstrate that anistreplase is a very valuable thrombolytic agent. It may even be more effective than streptokinase and alteplase in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction when the patency of the coronary arteries 1 month after the acute coronary event is considered the primary endpoint.