De Luca Giuseppe, Suryapranata Harry, Marino Paolo
Division of Cardiology, Ospedale Maggiore della Carità, Eastern Piedmont University A. Avogadro, Novara, Italy.
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2008 Mar-Apr;50(5):352-82. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2007.11.004.
Several randomized trials and meta-analyses have shown that primary angioplasty is superior to thrombolysis in the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) in terms of death, reinfarction, and stroke. However, primary angioplasty should be regarded as the preferred strategy as long as it can not be applied with a reasonable time delay to treatment, as compared with the administration of thrombolysis. In fact, time-to-treatment has been shown to be a determinant of survival not only for thrombolysis but also for primary angioplasty. Recent guidelines consider a time from first medical contact to PCI of 90 minutes or a PCI-related delay of 60 minutes as reasonable cutoffs to identify the best reperfusion strategy. The beneficial effects of primary angioplasty could be expected particularly after the first 3 hours from symptom onset, when thrombolysis, particularly streptokinase, may be less effective, whereas within the first 3 hours, thrombolysis (started in the prehospital setting, preferably) may represent a valid therapeutic option. Because the survival benefits of primary angioplasty depends on the patient's risk profile and timely application of reperfusion, we would suggest, among patients in the first hours from symptom onset, a strategy of early pharmacologic reperfusion and transfer to primary PCI centers, where the decision of performing angiography acutely may be based on the assessment of myocardial reperfusion and risk profile, whereas after the first 3 hours from symptoms onset, primary angioplasty should be considered the preferred strategy if applicable, particularly in regions when streptokinase still represents the only available lytic therapy. However, even though primary angioplasty is able to achieve thrombolysis and TIMI 3 flow in most patients, a still relevant proportion of patients experience poor myocardial reperfusion, with negative impact on acute and long-term survival. The use of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa complex inhibitors has significantly improved survival, with additional benefits obtained by early administration aiming at early reperfusion, which are to be recommended, particularly among high-risk patients and those presenting within the first hours from symptom onset. The use of adjunctive mechanical devices has reduced the incidence of distal embolization without any apparent benefit in survival. Until the results of larger randomized trials become available, these devices may be considered in patients at high risk for distal embolization, such as those with large thrombotic burden. The use of coronary stenting has significantly reduced restenosis, as compared with balloon angioplasty. Several randomized trials have recently been conducted on drug-eluting stents in ST-segment elevation MI, showing the safety and significant benefits of these devices in terms of restenosis, as compared with bare metal stents (BMSs). However, because of unpredictable compliance to long-term double oral antiplatelet therapy in acute patients, caution should be taken with extensive use of drug-eluting stents in primary angioplasty.
多项随机试验和荟萃分析表明,在治疗ST段抬高型心肌梗死(MI)时,就死亡、再梗死和中风而言,直接血管成形术优于溶栓治疗。然而,只要与溶栓治疗相比,直接血管成形术不能在合理的时间延迟内应用于治疗,就应将其视为首选策略。事实上,治疗时间已被证明不仅是溶栓治疗,也是直接血管成形术生存的决定因素。最近的指南认为,从首次医疗接触到进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的时间为90分钟或PCI相关延迟为60分钟是确定最佳再灌注策略的合理界限。直接血管成形术的有益效果尤其在症状发作后的最初3小时后可以预期,此时溶栓治疗,尤其是链激酶,可能效果较差,而在最初3小时内,溶栓治疗(最好在院前开始)可能是一种有效的治疗选择。由于直接血管成形术的生存益处取决于患者的风险状况和再灌注的及时应用,我们建议,在症状发作后的最初几小时内,对于患者采用早期药物再灌注并转至直接PCI中心的策略,在该中心急性进行血管造影的决定可基于心肌再灌注和风险状况的评估,而在症状发作3小时后,如果适用,直接血管成形术应被视为首选策略,特别是在链激酶仍然是唯一可用溶栓治疗的地区。然而,尽管直接血管成形术能够使大多数患者实现溶栓和心肌梗死溶栓试验(TIMI)3级血流,但仍有相当比例的患者心肌再灌注不佳,这对急性和长期生存产生负面影响。血小板糖蛋白IIb/IIIa复合物抑制剂的使用显著提高了生存率,早期给药以实现早期再灌注可带来额外益处,这一点值得推荐,特别是在高危患者和症状发作后最初几小时内就诊的患者中。辅助机械装置的使用降低了远端栓塞的发生率,但对生存没有明显益处。在获得更大规模随机试验的结果之前,对于有远端栓塞高风险的患者,如那些血栓负荷大的患者,可以考虑使用这些装置。与球囊血管成形术相比,冠状动脉支架置入术显著降低了再狭窄率。最近针对ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者进行了几项关于药物洗脱支架的随机试验,结果表明与裸金属支架(BMS)相比,这些装置在再狭窄方面具有安全性和显著益处。然而,由于急性患者对长期双联口服抗血小板治疗的依从性不可预测,在直接血管成形术中广泛使用药物洗脱支架时应谨慎。