Nine studies specifically dealing with the comparison of intravenous streptokinase (IVSK) and intracoronary streptokinase (ICSK) in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI) were analyzed to determine if IVSK is as efficacious as ICSK in achieving thrombolysis. Pooled data from the studies yielded success rates of 73% for IVSK and 72% for ICSK. Considering that the studies which did not perform preintervention angiogram may have overestimated the thrombolytic success rate in IVSK patients, there is a possibility that ICSK may be slightly more effective in achieving acute reperfusion. Bleeding complications were similar, and a systemic lytic state was observed in both treatment groups. No definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the differences between groups in improvements of left ventricular function and mortality rates. ICSK has the advantage of direct documentation of reperfusion and spares the patient the risk of anticoagulation should the attempt fail. On the other hand, IVSK is cheaper, easier to administer, and can logistically be given earlier (even in the emergency room or ambulance) than ICSK; it is therefore more widely available, and may be the preferred mode of treatment in community hospitals where cardiac catheterization facilities are not readily available, if streptokinase is to be given at all.