Jolly Sanjit S, Cairns John A, Yusuf Salim, Meeks Brandi, Pogue Janice, Rokoss Michael J, Kedev Sasko, Thabane Lehana, Stankovic Goran, Moreno Raul, Gershlick Anthony, Chowdhary Saqib, Lavi Shahar, Niemelä Kari, Steg Philippe Gabriel, Bernat Ivo, Xu Yawei, Cantor Warren J, Overgaard Christopher B, Naber Christoph K, Cheema Asim N, Welsh Robert C, Bertrand Olivier F, Avezum Alvaro, Bhindi Ravinay, Pancholy Samir, Rao Sunil V, Natarajan Madhu K, ten Berg Jurriën M, Shestakovska Olga, Gao Peggy, Widimsky Petr, Džavík Vladimír
From the Population Health Research Institute and Department of Medicine, McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON (S.S.J., S.Y., B.M., J.P., M.J.R., L.T., M.K.N., O.S., P.G.), University of British Columbia, Vancouver (J.A.C.), London Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medicine, London, ON (S.L.), Southlake Regional Health Centre, Newmarket, ON (W.J.C.), Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network (C.B.O., V.D.), and St. Michael's Hospital (A.N.C.), Toronto, Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Department of Medicine, Edmonton (R.C.W.), and Quebec Heart-Lung Institute, Laval University, Quebec, QC (O.F.B.) - all in Canada; University Clinic of Cardiology, Sts. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia (S.K.); Clinical Center of Serbia and Department of Cardiology, Medical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia (G.S.); University Hospital La Paz, Madrid (R.M.); University Hospitals of Leicester, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, Leicester (A.G.), and University Hospitals South Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester (S.C.) - both in the United Kingdom; Heart Center, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland (K.N.); Université Paris-Diderot, Sorbonne Paris-Cité, INSERM Unité 1148, Hôpital Bichat, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris (P.G.S.); University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Pilsen, Pilsen (I.B.), and the Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague (P.W.) - both in the Czech Republic; the Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China (Y.X.); Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Contilla Heart and Vascular Center, Elisabeth-Krankenhaus, Essen, Germany (C.K.N.); Dante Pazzanese Institute of Cardiology, São Paulo (A.A.); Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney (R.B.); Northeast Clinical Trials Group, Scranton, PA (S.P.); Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (S.V.R.); and Department
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 9;372(15):1389-98. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415098. Epub 2015 Mar 16.
During primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), manual thrombectomy may reduce distal embolization and thus improve microvascular perfusion. Small trials have suggested that thrombectomy improves surrogate and clinical outcomes, but a larger trial has reported conflicting results.
We randomly assigned 10,732 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI to a strategy of routine upfront manual thrombectomy versus PCI alone. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure within 180 days. The key safety outcome was stroke within 30 days.
The primary outcome occurred in 347 of 5033 patients (6.9%) in the thrombectomy group versus 351 of 5030 patients (7.0%) in the PCI-alone group (hazard ratio in the thrombectomy group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.15; P=0.86). The rates of cardiovascular death (3.1% with thrombectomy vs. 3.5% with PCI alone; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12; P=0.34) and the primary outcome plus stent thrombosis or target-vessel revascularization (9.9% vs. 9.8%; hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.14; P=0.95) were also similar. Stroke within 30 days occurred in 33 patients (0.7%) in the thrombectomy group versus 16 patients (0.3%) in the PCI-alone group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.75; P=0.02).
In patients with STEMI who were undergoing primary PCI, routine manual thrombectomy, as compared with PCI alone, did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or NYHA class IV heart failure within 180 days but was associated with an increased rate of stroke within 30 days. (Funded by Medtronic and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; TOTAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01149044.).
在直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)期间,手动血栓切除术可能会减少远端栓塞,从而改善微血管灌注。小型试验表明,血栓切除术可改善替代指标和临床结局,但一项大型试验报告了相互矛盾的结果。
我们将10732例接受直接PCI的ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者随机分为常规早期手动血栓切除术策略组和单纯PCI组。主要结局是180天内心血管原因死亡、再次心肌梗死、心源性休克或纽约心脏协会(NYHA)IV级心力衰竭的复合结局。关键安全结局是30天内发生卒中。
血栓切除术组5033例患者中有347例(6.9%)发生主要结局,单纯PCI组5030例患者中有351例(7.0%)发生主要结局(血栓切除术组的风险比为0.99;95%置信区间[CI]为0.85至1.15;P=0.86)。心血管死亡发生率(血栓切除术组为3.1%,单纯PCI组为3.5%;风险比为0.90;95%CI为0.73至1.12;P=0.34)以及主要结局加支架血栓形成或靶血管血运重建发生率(9.9%对9.8%;风险比为1.00;95%CI为0.89至1.14;P=0.95)也相似。血栓切除术组33例患者(0.7%)在术后30天内发生卒中,单纯PCI组16例患者(0.3%)发生卒中(风险比为2.06;95%CI为1.13至3.75;P=0.02)。
在接受直接PCI的STEMI患者中,与单纯PCI相比,常规手动血栓切除术并未降低180天内心血管死亡、再次心肌梗死、心源性休克或NYHA IV级心力衰竭的风险,但与30天内卒中发生率增加相关。(由美敦力公司和加拿大卫生研究院资助;TOTAL临床试验注册号,NCT01149044。)