Suppr超能文献

急性 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的动脉入路和门球时间。

Arterial access and door-to-balloon times for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

机构信息

Heart and Vascular Institute, Penn State University, Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.

出版信息

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Apr 1;75(5):695-9. doi: 10.1002/ccd.22373.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study compares the transradial versus the transfemoral approach for time to intervention for patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

Survival following STEMI is associated with reperfusion times (door-to-balloon; D2B). For patients undergoing primary PCI for acute STEMI, potential effects of transradial approach (r-PCI) as compared with the femoral artery approach (f-PCI) on D2B times have not been extensively studied.

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting with STEMI at a tertiary care medical center were enrolled in a comprehensive-Heart Alert program (HA) and included in this analysis. Time parameters measured included: door-to-ECG, ECG-to-HA activation, HA activation-to-cath lab team arrival, patient arrival in cath lab to arterial access, and arterial access-to-balloon inflation.

RESULTS

Of 240 total patients, 205 underwent successful PCI (n = 124 r-PCI; n = 116 f-PCI). No significant difference was observed in the pre-cath lab times. Mean case start times for r-PCI took significantly longer (12.5 +/- 5.4 min vs. 10.5 +/- 5.7 min, P = 0.005) due to patient preparation. Once arterial access was obtained, balloon inflation occurred faster in the r-PCI group (18.3 vs. 24.1 min; P < 0.001). Total time from patient arrival to the cardiac cath lab to PCI was reduced in the r-PCI as compared to the f-PCI group (28.4 vs. 32.7 min, P = 0.01). There was a small but statistical difference in D2B time (r-PCI 76.4 min vs. f-PCI 86.5 min P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with STEMI can undergo successful PCI via radial artery approach without compromise in D2B times as compared to femoral artery approach.

摘要

目的

本研究比较了经桡动脉与经股动脉入路对 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者介入治疗时间的影响。

背景

STEMI 患者的存活率与再灌注时间(门球时间;D2B)有关。对于因急性 STEMI 而行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(p-PCI)的患者,经桡动脉入路(r-PCI)与股动脉入路(f-PCI)相比对 D2B 时间的潜在影响尚未得到广泛研究。

方法

在一家三级医疗中心连续入组因 STEMI 就诊的患者,并将其纳入本分析的综合心脏警报(HA)计划中。测量的时间参数包括:门到心电图、心电图到 HA 激活、HA 激活到导管室团队到达、患者到达导管室到动脉入路、动脉入路到球囊充气。

结果

在 240 例患者中,205 例患者成功进行了 PCI(n = 124 例 r-PCI;n = 116 例 f-PCI)。在导管室前的时间参数上,两组间无显著差异。由于患者准备时间的原因,r-PCI 的平均病例开始时间明显延长(12.5 ± 5.4 分钟 vs. 10.5 ± 5.7 分钟,P = 0.005)。一旦获得动脉入路,r-PCI 组的球囊充气时间更快(18.3 分钟 vs. 24.1 分钟;P < 0.001)。与 f-PCI 组相比,r-PCI 组患者到达心脏导管室到 PCI 的总时间更短(28.4 分钟 vs. 32.7 分钟,P = 0.01)。D2B 时间上存在微小但有统计学意义的差异(r-PCI 76.4 分钟 vs. f-PCI 86.5 分钟,P = 0.008)。

结论

与股动脉入路相比,STEMI 患者经桡动脉入路行成功 PCI 治疗,D2B 时间无明显延长。

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