Suppr超能文献

非ST段抬高型急性冠脉综合征患者管理中避免常规血运重建

Avoidance of routine revascularization in the management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.

作者信息

Boden W E

机构信息

University of Connecticut School of Medicine and Hartford Hospital, 06102, USA.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 2000 Dec 28;86(12B):42M-47M. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)01480-6.

Abstract

A debate continues over whether a routine invasive or a conservative strategy is the best treatment approach for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. The fundamental question underlying this debate is whether risk stratification should be an anatomy-driven or an ischemia-driven process. An early routine invasive or "drive-through" strategy, which consists of cardiac catheterization followed by percutaneous coronary intervention within 24 hours of the onset of angina, has not been shown to result in improved outcomes. In fact, investigators in the Veterans Affairs Non-Q-Wave Infarction Strategies in Hospital (VANQWISH) trial found that aggressively treated patients had significantly worse outcomes during the first year of follow-up than did those treated with a conservative strategy. In this overview, a conservative (ischemia-guided) strategy with aggressive medical therapy is recommended for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. This conservative treatment includes intensive antiplatelet, antithrombotic, and anti-ischemic therapy combined with careful clinical assessment and provocative testing. Patients undergo catheterization and revascularization only if spontaneous angina occurs or there is objective evidence of stress-induced myocardial ischemia. In the future, it may be revealed that only patients at high risk have real benefit from early aggressive therapy, but the same approach may result in harm to patients at low risk. Tailoring therapy to the level of risk is essential to optimizing efficacy and clinical outcomes.

摘要

对于非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征患者,常规侵入性策略还是保守策略是最佳治疗方法,目前仍存在争议。这场争论背后的根本问题是,风险分层应该是解剖学驱动的过程还是缺血驱动的过程。早期常规侵入性或“直通车”策略,即在心绞痛发作后24小时内进行心脏导管插入术,随后进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗,但尚未证明能改善预后。事实上,退伍军人事务部医院非Q波心肌梗死策略(VANQWISH)试验的研究人员发现,积极治疗的患者在随访的第一年中,其预后明显比采用保守策略治疗的患者差。在本综述中,建议对非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征患者采用积极药物治疗的保守(缺血指导)策略。这种保守治疗包括强化抗血小板、抗血栓和抗缺血治疗,以及仔细的临床评估和激发试验。仅在出现自发性心绞痛或有应激性心肌缺血的客观证据时,患者才接受导管插入术和血运重建治疗。未来可能会发现,只有高危患者才能真正从早期积极治疗中获益,但同样的方法可能会对低危患者造成伤害。根据风险水平调整治疗方案对于优化疗效和临床结果至关重要。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验