Suppr超能文献

ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者接受直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与院前及院内溶栓治疗的长期预后

Long-term outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs prehospital and in-hospital thrombolysis for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

作者信息

Stenestrand Ulf, Lindbäck Johan, Wallentin Lars

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden.

出版信息

JAMA. 2006 Oct 11;296(14):1749-56. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.14.1749.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Whether the superior results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reported in clinical trials in which patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) received reperfusion treatment can be replicated in daily practice has been questioned, especially whether it is superior to prehospital thrombolysis (PHT).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcome of different reperfusion strategies in consecutive STEMI patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A prospective observational cohort study of 26 205 consecutive STEMI patients in the Register of Information and Knowledge about Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admissions (RIKS-HIA) who received reperfusion therapy within 15 hours of symptom onset. The registry includes more than 95% of all Swedish patients, of all ages, who were treated in a coronary intensive care unit between 1999 and 2004.

INTERVENTIONS

Seven thousand eighty-four patients underwent primary PCI; 3078, PHT; and 16 043, in-hospital thrombolysis (IHT).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality, reinfarction, and readmissions as reported in the National Health Registries through December 31, 2005.

RESULTS

After adjusting for younger age and less comorbidity, primary PCI was associated with lower mortality than IHT at 30 days (344 [4.9%] vs 1834 [11.4%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.71) and at 1 year (541 [7.6%] vs 2555 [15.9%]; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.76). Also primary PCI correlated with lower mortality than PHT at 30 days (344 [4.9%] vs 234 [7.6%]; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85) and 1 year (541 [7.6%] vs 317 [10.3%]; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.94). Prehospital thrombolysis predicted a lower mortality than IHT at 30 days (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01) and at 1 year (HR, 0.84; CI 0.74-0.95). Beyond 2 hours' treatment delay, the observed mortality reductions with PHT tended to decrease while the benefits with primary PCI seemed to remain regardless of time delay. Primary PCI was also associated with shorter hospital stay and less reinfarction than either PHT or IHT.

CONCLUSIONS

In unselected patients with STEMI, primary PCI, which compared favorably with IHT and PHT, was associated with reduced duration of hospital stay, readmission, reinfarction, and mortality.

摘要

背景

在ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者接受再灌注治疗的临床试验中所报告的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的卓越疗效能否在日常实践中得以重现受到了质疑,尤其是其是否优于院前溶栓治疗(PHT)。

目的

评估连续的STEMI患者中不同再灌注策略的疗效。

设计、地点和患者:一项前瞻性观察性队列研究,研究对象为瑞典心脏重症监护入院信息与知识登记册(RIKS-HIA)中26205例连续的STEMI患者,这些患者在症状发作后15小时内接受了再灌注治疗。该登记册涵盖了1999年至2004年间在冠状动脉重症监护病房接受治疗的所有年龄段的瑞典患者,覆盖率超过95%。

干预措施

7084例患者接受了直接PCI;3078例接受了PHT;16043例接受了院内溶栓治疗(IHT)。

主要结局指标

截至2005年12月31日,国家卫生登记处报告的死亡率、再梗死率和再入院率。

结果

在对年龄较轻和合并症较少进行调整后,直接PCI在30天时的死亡率低于IHT(344例[4.9%]对1834例[11.4%];风险比[HR],0.61;95%置信区间[CI],0.53 - 0.71),在1年时也是如此(541例[7.6%]对2555例[15.9%];HR,0.68;95%CI,0.60 - 0.76)。直接PCI在30天时的死亡率也低于PHT(344例[4.9%]对234例[7.6%];HR,0.70;95%CI,0.58 - 0.85),在1年时也是如此(541例[7.6%]对317例[10.3%];HR,0.81;95%CI,0.69 - 0.94)。院前溶栓治疗在30天时的死亡率低于IHT(HR,0.87;95%CI,0.76 - 1.01),在1年时也是如此(HR,0.84;CI 0.74 - 0.95)。在治疗延迟超过2小时后,观察到的PHT带来的死亡率降低趋势有所下降,而直接PCI的益处似乎不受时间延迟影响。直接PCI还与比PHT或IHT更短的住院时间和更低的再梗死率相关。

结论

在未经过选择的STEMI患者中,与IHT和PHT相比具有优势的直接PCI与住院时间缩短、再入院率降低、再梗死率降低和死亡率降低相关。

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