White H D
Cardiology Department, Green Lane Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Chest. 1989 May;95(5 Suppl):265S-269S. doi: 10.1378/chest.95.5_supplement.265s.
Thrombolysis is well established as effective therapy in AMI. Two thrombolytic agents, streptokinase and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), are now widely available for clinical use. These agents have different effects, and there has been considerable debate as to which is superior. Both are effective in preserving myocardial function and reducing mortality. However, the confidence limits of these findings overlap, and no firm conclusions can be made from comparing trials enrolling different populations with different baseline characteristics and ancillary treatments such as angioplasty. There have been few "head-to-head" comparisons. These trials show that tPA achieves better lysis rates than streptokinase, but the theoretic advantage of fibrin specificity does not result in fewer adverse effects or greater preservation of LV function. Although each drug may have specific indications, the drugs appear similar in clinical benefit, and further comparison trials are required.
溶栓治疗已被公认为是急性心肌梗死(AMI)的有效治疗方法。目前,两种溶栓药物,即链激酶和组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(tPA),已广泛用于临床。这些药物有不同的作用,关于哪种药物更优一直存在相当大的争论。两者在保护心肌功能和降低死亡率方面均有效。然而,这些研究结果的置信区间存在重叠,因此,比较纳入具有不同基线特征的不同人群以及采用不同辅助治疗(如血管成形术)的试验,无法得出确凿结论。“头对头”比较很少。这些试验表明,tPA的溶栓率优于链激酶,但纤维蛋白特异性的理论优势并未导致不良反应减少或左心室功能得到更好的保护。尽管每种药物可能有特定的适应症,但两种药物在临床获益方面似乎相似,因此需要进一步的比较试验。