Alhabib Khalid F, Jolly Sanjit S, Yusuf Salim, Alsheikh-Ali Alawi A, Al Suwaidi Jassim, Hersi Ahmad, Sulaiman Kadhim, Al Saif Shukri, Almahmeed Wael, Asaad Nidal, Amin Haitham, Al-Motarreb Ahmed, Alfaleh Hussam, Alnemer Khalid, Thalib Lukman
King Fahad Cardiac Center, King Khalid University Hospital, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Coron Artery Dis. 2013 Aug;24(5):412-8. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0b013e328361a910.
It is currently unclear whether acute coronary syndrome patients who access hospitals with catheterization facilities, with or without an on-site percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), have better outcomes in real-life clinical practice.
This 9-month prospective study was carried out in six Arabian Gulf countries. Patients in hospitals with catheterization facilities [20/65 hospitals; 3615/6847 (52.8%) patients] were more likely to show evidence of cardiovascular risk factors (P<0.001) and more likely to undergo revascularization procedures that were mostly performed (≥80%) in low-risk and intermediate-risk patients. Patients in these centres experienced significantly higher rates of medical therapies and shorter door-to-needle times [median (IQR): 33 (40) vs. 43.5 (43) min, P<0.001]; 14.1% had primary PCI. They also had less in-hospital recurrent ischaemia, recurrent myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and stroke, but more cardiogenic shock and major bleeding, and they had similar adjusted mortality rates in-hospital [odds ratio (OR): 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.27] and at 30-day (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91-1.36) and 1-year (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.89-1.27) follow-ups.
Access to hospitals with catheterization facilities, with or without on-site PCI, was associated with a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction and recurrent ischaemia, but not mortality. Further efforts are required to target revascularization procedures for higher risk patients as well as to widely implement primary PCI programmes.
目前尚不清楚在现实临床实践中,进入具备导管插入设备的医院(无论是否有现场经皮冠状动脉介入治疗[PCI])的急性冠状动脉综合征患者是否有更好的预后。
这项为期9个月的前瞻性研究在六个阿拉伯海湾国家开展。在具备导管插入设备的医院中的患者[20/65家医院;3615/6847(52.8%)例患者]更有可能有心血管危险因素证据(P<0.001),并且更有可能接受血运重建手术,这些手术大多在低风险和中风险患者中进行(≥80%)。这些中心的患者接受药物治疗的比例显著更高,且从入院到溶栓的时间更短[中位数(四分位间距):33(40)分钟对43.5(43)分钟,P<0.001];14.1%的患者接受了直接PCI。他们院内复发性缺血、复发性心肌梗死、充血性心力衰竭和中风的发生率也更低,但心源性休克和大出血更多,并且他们在院内[比值比(OR):1.06,95%置信区间(CI):0.88 - 1.27]、30天(OR:1.11,95%CI:0.91 - 1.36)和1年(OR:1.06,95%CI:0.89 - 1.27)随访时的调整后死亡率相似。
进入具备导管插入设备的医院(无论是否有现场PCI)与复发性心肌梗死和复发性缺血的减少相关,但与死亡率无关。需要进一步努力针对高风险患者进行血运重建手术,并广泛实施直接PCI计划。