Thrombolytic therapy reduces early mortality, preserves left ventricular function and improves long term prognosis of acute myocardial infarction. However it is relatively expensive and increasing use will have considerable financial consequences. With competing demand for health resources, information on economic evaluation of this revolutionary therapeutic modality is much needed. Economic evaluation of thrombolytic therapy of acute myocardial infarction entails the assessment of all resources consumed (costs) directly and indirectly in relation to the administration of thrombolytic drugs, versus the beneficial effects (outcome) on health preservation of the patients. To save 1 year of life, the costs of thrombolytic therapy using intravenous streptokinase, alteplase (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator; rt-PA) or anistreplase (anisoylated plasminogen streptokinase activator complex) under standard restricted indication criteria, vary from 1000 pounds British sterling to 1700 pounds British sterling in the UK, SEK3090 to 9660 in Scandinavia and $US35 000 to 800 000 in the US, depending on time delay in starting treatment after pain onset, size of infarct, thrombolytic agents used, study methodology, lists of clinical events considered in cost counting and the discount rate. Cost-utility analyses revealed that the costs of thrombolytic treatment are similar to those of many other treatments for cardiac or other diseases, but methods for evaluating quality of life and utility require further refinement and validation. Economic assessments confirm that thrombolytic treatment of the elderly ( greater than 70 years) is as cost-effective as treatment of younger patients and that both early and late thrombolytic therapy (given 6 to 12 hours after infarction) are beneficial and cost-effective. There are major logistical problems with prehospital thrombolysis, which despite great initial enthusiasm, is unlikely to be cost-effective in saving lives unless savings in time are greater than 1 hour. Cost-effectiveness/utility value of one drug determined from one study cannot be directly compared with that found in other studies using different drugs. More direct prospective comparative trials will be needed in respect of relative benefits and costs with different agents and adjunctive therapies.