• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

埃索美拉唑与法莫替丁预防急性冠脉综合征或心肌梗死患者上消化道出血的比较。

Esomeprazole compared with famotidine in the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome or myocardial infarction.

机构信息

Department of Medicine and Geriatric, Ruttonjee Hospital, Hong Kong, China.

出版信息

Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Mar;107(3):389-96. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.385. Epub 2011 Nov 22.

DOI:10.1038/ajg.2011.385
PMID:22108447
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors compared with H(2) receptor antagonists in preventing adverse upper gastrointestinal complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) receiving aspirin, clopidogrel, and enoxaparin or thrombolytics. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacies of esomeprazole and famotidine in preventing gastrointestinal complications.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was performed in patients receiving a combination of aspirin, clopidogrel, and either enoxaparin or thrombolytics. Patients received either esomeprazole (20 mg nocte) or famotidine (40 mg nocte) orally for 4-52 weeks, depending on the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary end point was upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), perforation, or obstruction from ulcer/erosion (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00683111).

RESULTS

In all, 311 patients were recruited, with 163 and 148 patients in the esomeprazole and famotidine groups, respectively. Mean (s.d.) follow-up was 19.2 (17.6) and 17.6 (18.0) weeks, respectively. One (0.6%) patient in the esomeprazole group and 9 (6.1%) in the famotidine group reached the primary end point (log-rank test, P=0.0052, hazard ratio=0.095, 95% confidence interval: 0.005-0.504); all had upper GIB.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ACS or STEMI, esomeprazole is superior to famotidine in preventing upper gastrointestinal complications related to aspirin, clopidogrel, and enoxaparin or thrombolytics.

摘要

目的

对于接受阿司匹林、氯吡格雷和依诺肝素或溶栓药物治疗的急性冠脉综合征(ACS)或 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者,质子泵抑制剂与 H2 受体拮抗剂相比预防不良上消化道并发症的疗效知之甚少。本研究旨在比较埃索美拉唑和法莫替丁预防胃肠道并发症的疗效。

方法

对接受阿司匹林、氯吡格雷联合依诺肝素或溶栓药物治疗的患者进行了一项双盲、随机、对照试验。患者接受埃索美拉唑(20mg 每晚)或法莫替丁(40mg 每晚)口服治疗 4-52 周,具体取决于双联抗血小板治疗的持续时间。主要终点是上消化道出血(GIB)、穿孔或溃疡/糜烂引起的梗阻(http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00683111)。

结果

共纳入 311 例患者,埃索美拉唑组和法莫替丁组分别有 163 例和 148 例。两组平均(标准差)随访时间分别为 19.2(17.6)和 17.6(18.0)周。埃索美拉唑组有 1 例(0.6%)患者和法莫替丁组有 9 例(6.1%)患者达到主要终点(对数秩检验,P=0.0052,风险比=0.095,95%置信区间:0.005-0.504);所有患者均有上 GIB。

结论

在 ACS 或 STEMI 患者中,埃索美拉唑在预防与阿司匹林、氯吡格雷和依诺肝素或溶栓药物相关的上消化道并发症方面优于法莫替丁。

相似文献

1
Esomeprazole compared with famotidine in the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome or myocardial infarction.埃索美拉唑与法莫替丁预防急性冠脉综合征或心肌梗死患者上消化道出血的比较。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Mar;107(3):389-96. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.385. Epub 2011 Nov 22.
2
Effect of esomeprazole versus famotidine on platelet inhibition by clopidogrel: a double-blind, randomized trial.埃索美拉唑与法莫替丁对氯吡格雷抑制血小板作用的影响:一项双盲、随机试验。
Am Heart J. 2011 Nov;162(5):870-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2011.08.007.
3
[Antiplatelet therapy after aspirin-induced upper gastrointestinal bleeding].[阿司匹林诱发上消化道出血后的抗血小板治疗]
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2006 Nov 2;126(21):2802-4.
4
Gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving a combination of aspirin, clopidogrel, and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndrome.急性冠状动脉综合征患者接受阿司匹林、氯吡格雷和依诺肝素联合治疗时的胃肠道出血
Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Apr;103(4):865-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01715.x. Epub 2008 Jan 2.
5
Esomeprazole with aspirin versus clopidogrel for prevention of recurrent gastrointestinal ulcer complications.埃索美拉唑联合阿司匹林与氯吡格雷预防胃肠道溃疡复发并发症的比较
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Jul;4(7):860-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.04.019. Epub 2006 Jun 22.
6
Efficacy and safety of optimized antithrombotic therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel and enoxaparin in patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes in clinical practice.临床实践中阿司匹林、氯吡格雷和依诺肝素优化抗栓治疗在非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征患者中的疗效与安全性
J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2009 Oct;28(3):325-32. doi: 10.1007/s11239-008-0294-y. Epub 2008 Dec 20.
7
Influence of omeprazole and famotidine on the antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study.奥美拉唑和法莫替丁对急性冠脉综合征患者阿司匹林联合氯吡格雷抗血小板作用的影响:一项前瞻性、随机、多中心研究。
Circ J. 2012;76(11):2673-80. doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-12-0511. Epub 2012 Jul 21.
8
Clopidogrel versus aspirin and esomeprazole to prevent recurrent ulcer bleeding.氯吡格雷与阿司匹林及埃索美拉唑预防溃疡复发出血的比较
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 20;352(3):238-44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa042087.
9
Proton-Pump Inhibitors Reduce Gastrointestinal Events Regardless of Aspirin Dose in Patients Requiring Dual Antiplatelet Therapy.质子泵抑制剂减少双联抗血小板治疗患者胃肠道事件与阿司匹林剂量无关。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Apr 12;67(14):1661-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.12.068. Epub 2016 Mar 21.
10
Cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events of three antiplatelet therapies: clopidogrel, clopidogrel plus proton-pump inhibitors, and aspirin plus proton-pump inhibitors in patients with previous gastrointestinal bleeding.三种抗血小板治疗(氯吡格雷、氯吡格雷加质子泵抑制剂和阿司匹林加质子泵抑制剂)在既往有胃肠道出血史的患者中的心血管和胃肠道事件。
J Gastroenterol. 2011 Jan;46(1):39-45. doi: 10.1007/s00535-010-0299-0. Epub 2010 Sep 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel With and Without a Proton Pump Inhibitor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.氯吡格雷联合或不联合质子泵抑制剂的疗效与安全性:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2025 Aug;137(2):e70087. doi: 10.1111/bcpt.70087.
2
Proton Pump Inhibitors Use in Patients With Ischemic Stroke on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy at Low Risk of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.质子泵抑制剂在接受双重抗血小板治疗且上消化道出血风险较低的缺血性中风患者中的应用。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2025 Jan 7;14(1):e035239. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.035239. Epub 2024 Dec 24.
3
A network meta-analysis: evaluating the efficacy and safety of concurrent proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel therapy in post-PCI patients.
一项网状Meta分析:评估PCI术后患者同时使用质子泵抑制剂和氯吡格雷治疗的有效性和安全性。
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Jul 24;11:1385318. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1385318. eCollection 2024.
4
Pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units: a network meta-analysis.重症监护病房患者预防上消化道出血的药物干预:一项网状Meta分析。
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2025 Jan 22;30(1):22-35. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112886.
5
Optimizing antithrombotic therapy in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease.优化合并心血管疾病和胃肠道疾病患者的抗栓治疗
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2024 Aug;21(8):574-592. doi: 10.1038/s41569-024-01003-3. Epub 2024 Mar 20.
6
Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2020.2020 年消化性溃疡病循证临床实践指南。
J Gastroenterol. 2021 Apr;56(4):303-322. doi: 10.1007/s00535-021-01769-0. Epub 2021 Feb 23.
7
Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors with Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Coronary Artery Disease.质子泵抑制剂与双重抗血小板治疗用于冠状动脉疾病的疗效和安全性的Meta分析
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019 Dec;20(12):1125-1133. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2019.02.002. Epub 2019 Feb 10.
8
PPIs Are Not Responsible for Elevating Cardiovascular Risk in Patients on Clopidogrel-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.质子泵抑制剂不会增加接受氯吡格雷治疗患者的心血管风险——一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Front Physiol. 2018 Nov 19;9:1550. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01550. eCollection 2018.
9
Interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units.重症监护病房患者上消化道出血的预防干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 4;6(6):CD008687. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008687.pub2.
10
Comparison of prophylactic effect of UGIB and effects on platelet function between PPIs and HRAs combined with DAPT: systematic review and meta-analysis.质子泵抑制剂(PPIs)与组胺H2受体拮抗剂(HRAs)联合双联抗血小板治疗(DAPT)对上消化道大出血(UGIB)的预防效果及血小板功能影响的比较:系统评价与Meta分析
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2017 Mar 24;13:367-377. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S127292. eCollection 2017.