Muller D W, Topol E J
University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor.
Ann Intern Med. 1990 Dec 15;113(12):949-60. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-113-12-949.
To critically review the current recommendations regarding the eligibility of patients with myocardial infarction for thrombolytic therapy.
Relevant studies published from January 1980 to January 1990 were identified through a computerized search of the English-language literature using MEDLINE and by a manual search of the bibliographies of all identified articles.
All randomized, controlled trials of intravenous thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina were reviewed. Smaller, observational studies and previous review articles were included when relevant to the discussion.
Key data were extracted from each article, including the proportions of patients eligible for thrombolysis, the reasons for exclusion from thrombolytic therapy, and the clinical outcomes of patients treated and of those excluded from treatment. The validity of certain exclusion criteria was examined using subgroup analysis from the large, randomized mortality trials of intravenous thrombolysis and observations from smaller, nonrandomized studies.
To date, relatively few patients with myocardial infarction have been considered eligible for fibrinolytic therapy. In this group, both early and late mortality have been significantly reduced. Patients excluded from thrombolysis, however, continue to have a high early mortality. The data suggest that the potential benefits of this treatment might be extended to selected high-risk subgroups. In particular, the risk-benefit ratio may favor the inclusion of otherwise healthy elderly patients; certain patients presenting more than 6 hours after the onset of symptoms; and patients with a history of controlled systolic hypertension or brief, nontraumatic cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The data do not support the use of fibrinolytic therapy as primary treatment in patients with unstable angina or suspected myocardial infarction in the absence of confirmatory electrocardiographic changes.
The full potential of thrombolytic therapy to alter the natural history of acute myocardial infarction can only be realized through the continued evaluation of selection criteria and the identification and treatment of the greatest possible number of eligible patients.
批判性地回顾当前关于心肌梗死患者溶栓治疗 eligibility 的建议。
通过使用 MEDLINE 对英文文献进行计算机检索,并人工检索所有已识别文章的参考文献,确定了 1980 年 1 月至 1990 年 1 月发表的相关研究。
回顾了所有关于急性心肌梗死和不稳定型心绞痛静脉溶栓的随机对照试验。相关讨论中纳入了较小规模的观察性研究和先前的综述文章。
从每篇文章中提取关键数据,包括符合溶栓条件的患者比例、被排除在溶栓治疗之外的原因,以及接受治疗的患者和被排除治疗的患者的临床结局。使用静脉溶栓大型随机死亡率试验的亚组分析和较小规模非随机研究的观察结果,检验了某些排除标准的有效性。
迄今为止,相对较少的心肌梗死患者被认为符合纤维蛋白溶解治疗条件。在这组患者中,早期和晚期死亡率均显著降低。然而,被排除在溶栓治疗之外的患者早期死亡率仍然很高。数据表明,这种治疗的潜在益处可能扩展到选定的高危亚组。特别是,风险效益比可能有利于纳入其他方面健康的老年患者;症状发作后超过 6 小时就诊的某些患者;以及有收缩期高血压控制史或短暂非创伤性心肺复苏史的患者。数据不支持在无确诊心电图改变的不稳定型心绞痛或疑似心肌梗死患者中使用纤维蛋白溶解治疗作为主要治疗方法。
只有通过持续评估选择标准,并识别和治疗尽可能多的符合条件的患者,才能充分发挥溶栓治疗改变急性心肌梗死自然病程的潜力。