Morrison L J, Verbeek P R, McDonald A C, Sawadsky B V, Cook D J
Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Science Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, Suite BG-20, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4N 3M5.
JAMA. 2000;283(20):2686-92. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2686.
Early administration of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may improve survival if safely and appropriately delivered. No systematic reviews that have comprehensively examined this topic exist in the literature.
To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of prehospital vs in-hospital thrombolysis for AMI measuring in-hospital mortality.
The Cochrane search strategy was used to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Science Citation Index (1982-1999); Dissertation Abstracts (1987-1999); and Current Contents (1994-1999) for the terms thrombolysis, thrombolysis therapy, prehospital, and acute myocardial infarction. In addition, text and journal article bibliographies were hand searched, the National Institutes of Health Web site was reviewed, and primary authors and thrombolytic drug manufacturers were contacted for unpublished studies.
Randomized controlled trials of prehospital vs in-hospital thrombolysis for AMI measuring all-cause hospital mortality were included. Two authors independently reviewed 175 citations by title, abstract, or complete article. After exclusion of 30 duplicate citations, 145 studies remained, of which 6 studies and 3 follow-up studies met the inclusion criteria.
Independent data abstraction by 2 reviewers blinded to the journal, title, and author was confirmed by consensus. Trial quality was independently assessed by 2 other coauthors, blinded to the author, title, journal, introduction, and discussion.
The results of the 6 randomized trials (n=6434) were pooled and indicated significantly decreased all-cause hospital mortality among patients treated with prehospital thrombolysis compared with in-hospital thrombolysis (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98). Results were similar regardless of trial quality or training and experience of the provider. Estimated (SE) time to thrombolysis was 104 (7) minutes for the prehospital group and 162 (16) minutes for the in-hospital thrombolysis group (P=.007).
Our meta-analysis suggests that prehospital thrombolysis for AMI significantly decreases the time to thrombolysis and all-cause hospital mortality. JAMA. 2000;283:2686-2692.
如果能安全且恰当地进行急性心肌梗死(AMI)溶栓治疗,早期给药可能会提高生存率。文献中尚无全面研究该主题的系统评价。
对院前与院内溶栓治疗AMI的随机对照试验进行荟萃分析,以评估院内死亡率。
采用Cochrane检索策略,检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和科学引文索引(1982 - 1999年);学位论文摘要(1987 - 1999年);以及现刊目次(1994 - 1999年)中有关溶栓、溶栓治疗、院前和急性心肌梗死的术语。此外,还手工检索了文本和期刊文章的参考文献,查阅了美国国立卫生研究院网站,并联系了主要作者和溶栓药物制造商以获取未发表的研究。
纳入比较院前与院内溶栓治疗AMI并测量全因院内死亡率的随机对照试验。两位作者独立审查了175篇通过标题、摘要或全文的文献。排除30篇重复文献后,剩下145项研究,其中6项研究和3项随访研究符合纳入标准。
由两位对期刊、标题和作者不知情的审阅者独立进行数据提取,并通过共识确认。另外两位共同作者在对作者、标题、期刊、引言和讨论不知情的情况下,独立评估试验质量。
汇总6项随机试验(n = 6434)的结果,表明与院内溶栓相比,院前溶栓治疗的患者全因院内死亡率显著降低(优势比,0.83;95%置信区间,0.70 - 0.98)。无论试验质量或提供者的培训及经验如何,结果均相似。院前组溶栓的估计(SE)时间为104(7)分钟,院内溶栓组为162(16)分钟(P = 0.007)。
我们的荟萃分析表明,AMI的院前溶栓显著缩短了溶栓时间并降低了全因院内死亡率。《美国医学会杂志》。2000年;283:2686 - 2692。