Suppr超能文献

重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂与尿激酶用于股腘动脉闭塞局部溶栓的比较:一项前瞻性、随机多中心试验。

Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator versus urokinase for local thrombolysis of femoropopliteal occlusions: a prospective, randomized multicenter trial.

作者信息

Mahler F, Schneider E, Hess H

机构信息

University Hospital of Bern, Switzerland.

出版信息

J Endovasc Ther. 2001 Dec;8(6):638-47. doi: 10.1177/152660280100800618.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To report the outcome of a prospective, randomized, open multicenter trial comparing (1) the effects of local thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) or urokinase (UK) and (2) 2 administration techniques.

METHODS

Two hundred thirty-four patients with thromboembolic occlusions in 223 native femoral or popliteal arteries (95%) and 11 bypass grafts (5%) were randomized to rtPA (n = 124) or UK (n = 110) administered either through an endhole catheter (Hess technique) in 81 patients or a microporous balloon catheter (Schneider technique) in 153 patients. When lysis was incomplete, additional catheter interventions were applied to achieve patency. Results were analyzed by fluoroscopy during intervention and by angiography evaluated by independent experts blinded to the methods applied.

RESULTS

The only significant difference between rtPA and UK was found at the end of lysis using the Hess technique. Complete reperfusion (TIMI grade 3) was produced in 60% of patients by rtPA versus 37% by UK (p = 0.045). By both techniques TIMI grade 3 was achieved in 62% with rtPA and in 50% with UK (p = 0.18). Independent of delivery technique, thrombolytic agent, or additional catheter interventions, TIMI grade 3 was achieved in 81% and angiographic patency in 88%. Primary patency at 6 months was 66%, which was increased by secondary interventions to 75%. Major amputations were performed in 6%, all in patients with initial Fontaine stage III/IV ischemia.

CONCLUSIONS

With local thrombolysis alone, rtPA appears to be more effective than UK; however, additional catheter interventions further improved patency, abolishing the difference between the lytic agents.

摘要

目的

报告一项前瞻性、随机、开放的多中心试验结果,该试验比较了(1)重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(rtPA)或尿激酶(UK)局部溶栓的效果,以及(2)两种给药技术。

方法

234例血栓栓塞性闭塞患者,其中223例为原位股动脉或腘动脉(95%),11例为旁路移植血管(5%),随机分为rtPA组(n = 124)或UK组(n = 110),81例患者通过端孔导管(Hess技术)给药,153例患者通过微孔球囊导管(Schneider技术)给药。当溶栓不完全时,采用额外的导管干预措施以实现血管通畅。在干预过程中通过荧光透视进行结果分析,并由对所应用方法不知情的独立专家进行血管造影评估。

结果

rtPA和UK之间唯一的显著差异出现在使用Hess技术溶栓结束时。rtPA使60%的患者实现完全再灌注(TIMI 3级),而UK为37%(p = 0.045)。两种技术下,rtPA组62%的患者达到TIMI 3级,UK组为50%(p = 0.18)。无论给药技术、溶栓剂或额外的导管干预如何,81%的患者达到TIMI 3级,88%的患者血管造影显示通畅。6个月时的初始通畅率为66%,通过二次干预后提高到75%。6%的患者进行了大截肢,均为初始处于Fontaine III/IV期缺血的患者。

结论

仅局部溶栓时,rtPA似乎比UK更有效;然而,额外的导管干预进一步提高了通畅率,消除了溶栓剂之间的差异。

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