Bär FW, Ophnis TJ, Frederiks J, Vermeer F, Gorgels AP, Wellens HJ
Department of Cardiology, Academic Hospital Maastricht, University of Limburg, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
J Thromb Thrombolysis. 1997;4(2):281-288. doi: 10.1023/a:1008807321037.
Evidence is increasing that a patent culprit artery improves the prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) has shown to be more effective than thrombolytic therapy alone. How effective is rescue PTCA after failed thrombolytic treatment? In a retrospective analysis, 176 consecutive patients with AMI and TIMI 0 or 1 perfusion grade were included. Patients had either rescue PTCA after failed thrombolysis (100 patients) or primary PTCA (76 patients). Angiographic data and in-hospital and 1-year outcome were analyzed. Comparison of baseline data of the two groups showed a higher proportion of long-standing angina and use of nitrates and aspirin in the primary PTCA group. Also, the delay between the onset of pain and PTCA was not significantly different, with a mean of 222 minutes for rescue PTCA and 245 minutes for primary PTCA (p = 0.52). The angiographic outcomes in the rescue PTCA group and the primary PTCA group were identical: The intervention was successful (TIMI 3 flow and residual stenosis <50%) in 86.0% and 85.5%, respectively. Complication rates of the procedure were also similar, except for bleeding complications. Blood transfusion was only needed after rescue PTCA in 3.0% versus 0.0% in primary PTCA patients. Clinical outcomes during hospital stay in terms of death rate (4.0% and 6.6%), reinfarction (6.0% and 3.9%), recurrent angina (16.0% and 11.8%), and repeat interventions were comparable, as was the first-year outcome. Failed PTCA was the most important predictor of a poor 1-year outcome; 28.0% died after failed PTCA versus 4.6% after successful PTCA (p < 0.001). In this retrospective analysis of 176 AMI patients, angiographic and clinical outcome, including a 1-year follow-up in patients who had rescue PTCA after failed thrombolysis, were of the same magnitude of patients in whom primary PTCA was performed. These findings suggest that in this subset the outcome of patients with rescue PTCA because of failed thrombolysis is good and is comparable with patients who underwent primary PTCA.
越来越多的证据表明,明确梗死相关动脉可改善急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者的预后。直接经皮冠状动脉腔内血管成形术(PTCA)已被证明比单纯溶栓治疗更有效。溶栓治疗失败后补救性PTCA的效果如何?在一项回顾性分析中,纳入了176例连续的AMI且TIMI血流分级为0或1级的患者。这些患者要么在溶栓失败后接受补救性PTCA(100例),要么接受直接PTCA(76例)。分析了血管造影数据以及住院期间和1年的结局。两组基线数据比较显示,直接PTCA组中慢性心绞痛、使用硝酸盐和阿司匹林的比例更高。此外,疼痛发作与PTCA之间的延迟无显著差异,补救性PTCA的平均延迟为222分钟,直接PTCA为245分钟(p = 0.52)。补救性PTCA组和直接PTCA组的血管造影结果相同:干预成功(TIMI 3级血流且残余狭窄<50%)的比例分别为86.0%和85.5%。除出血并发症外,手术并发症发生率也相似。补救性PTCA后仅3.0%的患者需要输血,而直接PTCA患者中这一比例为0.0%。住院期间的临床结局,如死亡率(4.0%和6.6%)、再梗死率(6.0%和3.9%)、复发性心绞痛(16.0%和11.8%)以及再次干预情况均具有可比性,1年结局也是如此。PTCA失败是1年不良结局的最重要预测因素;PTCA失败后28.0%的患者死亡,而PTCA成功后这一比例为4.6%(p < 0.001)。在这项对176例AMI患者的回顾性分析中,血管造影和临床结局,包括对溶栓失败后接受补救性PTCA患者的1年随访结果,与接受直接PTCA的患者相当。这些发现表明,在这一亚组中,因溶栓失败而接受补救性PTCA患者的结局良好,与接受直接PTCA的患者相当。