Terkelsen C J, Christiansen E H, Sørensen J T, Kristensen S D, Lassen J F, Thuesen L, Andersen H R, Vach W, Nielsen T T
Department of Cardiology B, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark.
Heart. 2009 Mar;95(5):362-9. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2007.139493.
There is a continuing controversy about the acceptable time-window for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Recent American and European guidelines recommend PPCI if the delay in performing PPCI instead of administering fibrinolysis (PCI-related delay) is <60 min and the presentation delay is more than 3 h. Based on a review of the literature, this viewpoint recommends a revision of the guidelines. The evidence supports an acceptable PCI-related delay of 80-120 min and PPCI as the better reperfusion strategy also in the early incomers. Furthermore, the previous assumption that PPCI is less time-dependent than fibrinolysis is questioned. To maximise the number of patients with STEMI eligible for PPCI the optimal logistic may be to establish the diagnosis in the prehospital phase, to bypass local hospitals and re-route patients directly to catheterisation laboratories running 24/7.
对于ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者进行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)的可接受时间窗,一直存在争议。近期美国和欧洲的指南建议,如果进行PPCI而非溶栓治疗的延迟时间(PCI相关延迟)<60分钟且就诊延迟超过3小时,则应进行PPCI。基于文献综述,该观点建议对指南进行修订。证据支持可接受的PCI相关延迟为80 - 120分钟,并且对于早期就诊患者,PPCI也是更好的再灌注策略。此外,之前认为PPCI比溶栓治疗对时间依赖性较小的假设也受到质疑。为了使符合PPCI条件的STEMI患者数量最大化,最佳的后勤安排可能是在院前阶段确立诊断,绕过当地医院,将患者直接重新安排至全天候运营的导管室。