外周动脉溶栓的输注技术。
Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis.
作者信息
Kessel D O, Berridge D C, Robertson I
机构信息
Department of Clinical Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK, LS9 7TS.
出版信息
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(1):CD000985. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000985.pub2.
BACKGROUND
Thrombolytic therapy is a useful tool in the management of acute peripheral arterial ischaemia. Fibrinolytic drugs are used to disperse blood clot to clear arterial occlusion. A variety of techniques are used to deliver these agents.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the optimal technique for infusion of fibrinolytic drugs in peripheral arterial ischaemia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Library (issue 3, 2003) and the Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Review Group on Peripheral Vascular Diseases (July 2003) were searched. Proceedings from meetings of British, European and North American Vascular Surgical and Radiological Societies, plus reference lists of identified studies were also searched for relevant trials. Major pharmaceutical firms and trialists were asked about unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two reviewers independently selected randomised controlled trials comparing infusion techniques of fibrinolytic agents in the treatment of acute peripheral arterial ischaemia. Trials with poor quality methodology were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data from included trials were collated and analysed for the following outcomes: limb salvage, amputation, death, vessel patency, time to achieve thrombolysis, and reduction in the need for surgical intervention. Complication rates were compared for: major haemorrhage, cerebrovascular accident and distal embolization.
MAIN RESULTS
Intra-arterial delivery of thrombolytic agents appeared to be more effective than intravenous administration. Thrombolysis was more effective when the angiographic catheter was placed within the thrombus. Although 'high dose' and 'forced infusion' techniques achieved vessel patency in less time than 'low dose infusion', there were more bleeding complications, and no increase in patency rates or improvement in limb salvage at 30 days.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice Thrombolysis should be reserved for patients with limb threatening ischaemia, due to the high risk of haemorrhage or death. Greater benefit is seen when the thrombolytic agent is delivered into the thrombus. Systemic intravenous thrombolysis is less effective than intra-arterial thrombolysis and is associated with an increase in bleeding complications. 'High dose' and 'forced infusion' techniques, or adjunctive agents such as platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors may speed up thrombolysis, but these are not accompanied by lower amputation rates or a decreased need for adjunctive endovascular or surgical procedures. 'Low dose continuous infusion', following initial lacing of the thrombus with a high dose of the thrombolytic agent, is the least labour intensive technique. Implications for research Only large multicentre trials with carefully controlled inclusion criteria will be sufficiently powerful to demonstrate genuine benefit for a particular thrombolytic regime.
背景
溶栓治疗是急性外周动脉缺血治疗中的一项有用手段。纤维蛋白溶解药物用于溶解血凝块以清除动脉阻塞。有多种技术可用于递送这些药物。
目的
确定在外周动脉缺血中输注纤维蛋白溶解药物的最佳技术。
检索策略
检索了Cochrane图书馆(2003年第3期)以及Cochrane外周血管疾病综述小组的专门试验注册库(2003年7月)。还检索了英国、欧洲和北美血管外科及放射学会会议的论文集,以及已识别研究的参考文献列表以查找相关试验。向主要制药公司和试验人员询问了未发表的试验情况。
选择标准
两名评审员独立选择比较纤维蛋白溶解剂输注技术治疗急性外周动脉缺血的随机对照试验。方法学质量差的试验被排除。
数据收集与分析
整理并分析纳入试验的数据以得出以下结果:肢体挽救、截肢、死亡、血管通畅、实现溶栓的时间以及手术干预需求的减少。比较了以下并发症发生率:大出血、脑血管意外和远端栓塞。
主要结果
动脉内递送溶栓药物似乎比静脉内给药更有效。当血管造影导管置于血栓内时,溶栓效果更佳。尽管“高剂量”和“强制输注”技术比“低剂量输注”能更快实现血管通畅,但出血并发症更多,且30天时通畅率未增加,肢体挽救情况也未改善。
评审员结论
对实践的启示 由于出血或死亡风险高,溶栓应仅用于有肢体威胁性缺血的患者。当溶栓药物递送至血栓内时,益处更大。全身静脉溶栓不如动脉内溶栓有效,且与出血并发症增加相关。“高剂量”和“强制输注”技术,或诸如血小板糖蛋白IIb/IIIa抑制剂等辅助药物可能会加速溶栓,但这些并未伴随着更低的截肢率或对辅助性血管内或外科手术需求的减少。在最初用高剂量溶栓药物处理血栓后采用“低剂量持续输注”是劳动强度最小的技术。对研究的启示 只有具有严格控制纳入标准的大型多中心试验才有足够的效力来证明特定溶栓方案的真正益处。