Su Qiang, Nyi Tun Swe, Li Lang
Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6, Shuang Yong Load, Nanning, Guangxi, China, 530021.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 May 18;2015(5):CD009503. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009503.pub3.
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Although coronary flow is restored after PPCI, impaired myocardial perfusion (known as no-reflow) related to poor clinical outcomes is frequently observed. To overcome this phenomenon, drugs, such as atorvastatin, abciximab and others, have been tried as adjunctive treatment to PPCI. Among these drugs, verapamil and adenosine are among the most promising. No other systematic reviews have examined use of these two drugs in people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing PPCI. This is an update of the version previously published (2013, Issue 6), for which the people of interest in the review were those treated with PPCI - not those given fibrinolytic therapy.
To study the impact of adenosine and verapamil on no-reflow during PPCI in people with AMI.
We updated searches of the following databases in June 2014 without language restriction: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and BIOSIS, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). We also handsearched The American Journal of Cardiology.
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which adenosine or verapamil was the primary intervention. Participants were individuals diagnosed with AMI who were undergoing PPCI.
Two review authors collected studies and extracted data. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to obtain relevant information. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), P values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of dichotomous data.
We included in our review 11 RCTs (one new study with 59 participants) involving 1027 participants. Ten RCTs were associated with adenosine and one with verapamil. We considered the overall risk of bias of included studies to be moderate. We found no evidence that adenosine reduced short-term all-cause mortality (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.48, P value = 0.27), long-term all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.74, P value = 0.70), short-term non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 1.32, 95% 0.33 to 5.29, P value = 0.69) or myocardial blush grade (MBG) 0 to 1 after PPCI (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22, P value = 0.75). The incidence of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade < 3 after PPCI (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.91, P value = 0.01) was decreased. Conversely, adverse events with adenosine, such as bradycardia (RR 6.32, 95% CI 2.98 to 13.41, P value < 0.00001), hypotension (RR 11.43, 95% CI 2.75 to 47.57, P value = 0.0008) and atrioventricular (AV) block (RR 6.78, 95% CI 2.15 to 21.38, P value = 0.001), were significantly increased.Meta-analysis of verapamil as treatment for no-reflow during PPCI was not performed because data were insufficient.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw conclusions because of the insufficient quality and quantity of current research studies. We considered the overall risk of bias of included studies to be moderate. Adenosine as treatment for no-reflow during PPCI could reduce angiographic no-reflow (TIMI flow grade < 3) but was found to increase adverse events. What's more, no evidence could be found to suggest that adenosine reduced all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or the incidence of myocardial blush grade 0 to 1. Additionally, the efficacy of verapamil for no-reflow during PPCI could not be analysed because data were insufficient. Further clinical research into adenosine and verapamil is needed because of the limited numbers of available trials and participants.
直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)是ST段抬高型心肌梗死的首选治疗方法。尽管PPCI后冠状动脉血流得以恢复,但与不良临床结局相关的心肌灌注受损(即无复流现象)却屡见不鲜。为克服这一现象,已尝试使用阿托伐他汀、阿昔单抗等药物作为PPCI的辅助治疗。其中,维拉帕米和腺苷是最具前景的药物。此前尚无其他系统评价研究过这两种药物在接受PPCI的急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者中的应用情况。这是对先前发表版本(2013年第6期)的更新,此次综述的目标人群为接受PPCI治疗的患者,而非接受溶栓治疗的患者。
研究腺苷和维拉帕米对接受PPCI的AMI患者无复流现象的影响。
我们于2014年6月对以下数据库进行了更新检索,无语言限制:Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、医学索引数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、科学引文索引数据库(Web of Science)和生物学文摘数据库(BIOSIS)、中国知网以及临床试验注册库(ClinicalTrials.gov、当前对照试验、澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册库、世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台)。我们还手工检索了《美国心脏病学杂志》。
我们纳入了以腺苷或维拉帕米作为主要干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT)。研究对象为被诊断为AMI且正在接受PPCI的患者。
两名综述作者收集研究并提取数据。必要时,我们会联系试验作者以获取相关信息。我们计算了二分数据的风险比(RR)、P值和95%置信区间(CI)。
我们的综述纳入了11项RCT(一项新研究,共59名参与者),涉及1027名参与者。其中10项RCT与腺苷有关,1项与维拉帕米有关。我们认为纳入研究的总体偏倚风险为中等。我们未发现证据表明腺苷可降低短期全因死亡率(RR = 0.61,95%CI为0.25至1.48,P值 = 0.27)、长期全因死亡率(RR = 0.78,95%CI为0.22至2.74,P值 = 0.70)、短期非致命性心肌梗死(RR = 1.32,95%CI为0.33至5.29,P值 = 0.69)或PPCI后心肌 blush分级(MBG)0至1级的发生率(RR = 0.96,95%CI为0.76至1.22,P值 = 0.75)。PPCI后心肌梗死溶栓(TIMI)血流分级<3级的发生率有所降低(RR = 0.62,95%CI为0.42至0.91,P值 = 0.01)。相反,腺苷的不良事件,如心动过缓(RR = 6.32,95%CI为2.98至13.41,P值<0.00001)、低血压(RR = 11.43,95%CI为2.75至47.57,P值 = 0.0008)和房室传导阻滞(RR = 6.78,95%CI为2.15至21.38,P值 = 0.001),显著增加。由于数据不足,未对维拉帕米治疗PPCI期间无复流现象进行Meta分析。
由于现有研究的质量和数量不足,难以得出结论。我们认为纳入研究的总体偏倚风险为中等。腺苷作为PPCI期间无复流现象的治疗方法,可降低血管造影无复流(TIMI血流分级<3级),但会增加不良事件。此外,未发现证据表明腺苷可降低全因死亡率、非致命性心肌梗死或心肌 blush分级0至1级的发生率。另外,由于数据不足,无法分析维拉帕米治疗PPCI期间无复流现象的疗效。鉴于现有试验和参与者数量有限,需要对腺苷和维拉帕米进行进一步的临床研究。