Collet Jean-Philippe, Montalescot Gilles, Le May Michel, Borentain Maria, Gershlick Anthony
Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, Paris, France.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Oct 3;48(7):1326-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.03.064. Epub 2006 Sep 14.
We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials that enrolled ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with fibrinolysis to assess the potential benefits of: 1) rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus no PCI; 2) systematic and early (< or =24 h) PCI versus delayed or ischemia-guided PCI; 3) fibrinolysis-facilitated PCI versus primary PCI alone.
The impact of PCI strategies after fibrinolysis on mortality or reinfarction remains to be established.
The meta-analysis was performed using the odds ratio (OR) as the parameter of efficacy with a random effect model. Fifteen randomized trials (5,253 patients) were selected. The primary end point was mortality or the combined end point of death or reinfarction.
Rescue PCI for failed fibrinolysis reduced mortality (6.9% vs. 10.7%) (OR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.99; p = 0.055) and the rate of death or reinfarction (10.8% vs. 16.8%) (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.89; p = 0.012) compared with a conservative approach. Systematic and early PCI performed during the "stent era" led to a nonsignificant reduction in mortality compared with delayed or ischemia-guided PCI (3.8% vs. 6.7%) (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.05; p = 0.07) and to a 2-fold reduction in the rate of death or reinfarction (7.5% vs. 13.2%) (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.83; p = 0.0067). This benefit contrasted with a nonsignificant increase in the rate of both mortality (5.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.33) or death or reinfarction (9.6% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.06) observed in the "balloon era." Fibrinolysis-facilitated PCI was associated with more reinfarction as compared with primary PCI alone (5.0% vs. 3.0%) (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.51; p = 0.013) without significant impact on mortality (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.83; p = 0.13).
Our findings support rescue PCI and systematic and early PCI after fibrinolysis. However, the current data do not support fibrinolysis-facilitated PCI in lieu of primary PCI alone.
我们对纳入接受纤溶治疗的ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者的随机试验进行了荟萃分析,以评估以下方面的潜在益处:1)补救性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与不进行PCI;2)系统性早期(≤24小时)PCI与延迟或缺血指导的PCI;3)纤溶辅助PCI与单纯直接PCI。
纤溶治疗后PCI策略对死亡率或再梗死的影响仍有待确定。
采用比值比(OR)作为疗效参数,随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。选择了15项随机试验(5253例患者)。主要终点为死亡率或死亡或再梗死的复合终点。
与保守治疗方法相比,纤溶失败后的补救性PCI降低了死亡率(6.9%对10.7%)(OR,0.63;95%置信区间[CI],0.39至0.99;p = 0.055)以及死亡或再梗死率(10.8%对16.8%)(OR,0.60;95%CI,0.41至0.89;p = 0.012)。在“支架时代”进行的系统性早期PCI与延迟或缺血指导的PCI相比,死亡率有非显著性降低(3.8%对6.7%)(OR,0.56;95%CI,0.29至1.05;p = 0.07),死亡或再梗死率降低了2倍(7.5%对13.2%)(OR,0.53;95%CI,0.33至0.83;p = 0.0067)。这一益处与在“球囊时代”观察到的死亡率(5.5%对3.9%,p = 0.33)或死亡或再梗死率(9.6%对5.7%,p = 0.06)非显著性增加形成对比。与单纯直接PCI相比,纤溶辅助PCI与更多的再梗死相关(5.0%对3.0%)(OR,1.68;95%CI,1.12至2.51;p = 0.013),对死亡率无显著影响(OR,1.30;95%CI,0.92至1.83;p = 0.13)。
我们的研究结果支持纤溶治疗后的补救性PCI以及系统性早期PCI。然而,目前的数据不支持用纤溶辅助PCI替代单纯直接PCI。