Suppr超能文献

瑞替普酶院前溶栓治疗:奈梅亨/鹿特丹研究

Prehospital thrombolysis with reteplase: the Nijmegen/Rotterdam study.

作者信息

Lamfers Evert J P, Schut Astrid, Hooghoudt Ton E H, Hertzberger Don P, Boersma Eric, Simoons Maarten L, Verheugt Freek W A

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Am Heart J. 2003 Sep;146(3):479-83. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8703(03)00310-7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this observational study was to assess time from electrocardiogram diagnosis to treatment and time from pain onset to treatment with double bolus reteplase compared to current therapy with streptokinase or bolus anistreplase in 2 cities (Rotterdam and Nijmegen) in the Netherlands, where prehospital thrombolysis is an established way of treatment of acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS

Prehospital thrombolysis is performed using electrocardiogram diagnosis by the ambulance service as well as bolus anistreplase for treatment in Nijmegen, and streptokinase infusion in Rotterdam. Reteplase or anistreplase/streptokinase was assigned open label to patients according to order of presentation on a 1-to-1 basis. All patients were treated with nitrates sublingually and aspirin orally. Time intervals were recorded by the ambulance staff.

RESULTS

In total, 250 patients were treated between April 1, 1999 and August 1, 2000. Reteplase was used in 120 patients and anistreplase/streptokinase in 130 patients. Using double bolus reteplase resulted in a significantly shorter time to treatment: a median of 81 minutes compared to a median of 104 minutes with the established therapy (P <.0001). There were no differences in mortality, aborted myocardial infarction, hemorrhagic stroke or the need for rescue angioplasty between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In prehospital thrombolysis, double bolus reteplase is associated with a shorter time to treatment than bolus anistreplase or infusion of streptokinase.

摘要

目的

本观察性研究的目的是,在荷兰的两个城市(鹿特丹和奈梅亨),对比双剂量瑞替普酶与链激酶或大剂量茴酰化纤溶酶原激活剂的当前治疗方法,评估从心电图诊断到治疗的时间以及从疼痛发作到治疗的时间,在这两个城市,院前溶栓是治疗急性心肌梗死的既定方法。

方法

在奈梅亨,院前溶栓通过救护车服务进行心电图诊断,并使用大剂量茴酰化纤溶酶原激活剂进行治疗,在鹿特丹则使用链激酶输注治疗。根据患者就诊顺序,将瑞替普酶或茴酰化纤溶酶原激活剂/链激酶以开放标签的方式一对一分配给患者。所有患者均接受舌下含服硝酸盐和口服阿司匹林治疗。时间间隔由救护人员记录。

结果

1999年4月1日至2000年8月1日期间,共治疗了250例患者。120例患者使用了瑞替普酶,130例患者使用了茴酰化纤溶酶原激活剂/链激酶。使用双剂量瑞替普酶使治疗时间显著缩短:中位数为81分钟,而既定治疗方法的中位数为104分钟(P<.0001)。两组在死亡率、心肌梗死中止、出血性中风或抢救性血管成形术需求方面无差异。

结论

在院前溶栓中,双剂量瑞替普酶与使用大剂量茴酰化纤溶酶原激活剂或链激酶输注相比,治疗时间更短。

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