Hu Sigan, Wang Hongju, Zhu Jian, Li Miaonan, Li Hui, Gao Dasheng, Zhang Heng
Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, Anhui, People's Republic of China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 May;97(21):e10850. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010850.
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 approaches for intra-coronary administration of tirofiban (aspiration catheter versus guiding catheter) in patients over 60 years of age undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It has been suggested that the administration of tirofiban by intra-coronary injection could promote drug absorption in the diseased region and enhance the inhibition of platelet aggregation, decreasing bleeding rates, but little is known about the comparative efficiency and safety of using guiding catheter versus aspiration catheter for delivery.Eighty-nine patients over 60 years of age with STEMI undergoing PCI were randomly divided into 2 groups according to the injection route for intracoronary administration of tirofiban [guiding catheter (n = 41) and aspiration catheter (n = 48)]. Baseline features, epicardial and myocardial perfusion, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), and bleeding rate were compared.No differences in age, gender, and history of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and so on were observed (P > .05). The patients in the aspiration catheter group generally had a higher incidence of cerebral vascular disease. Compared with those in the guiding catheter group, patients in the aspiration catheter group obtained more favorable myocardial perfusion (P < .05). In-hospital and at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups, the MACCE rate and frequency of bleeding events were similar between the 2 groups (P > .05).Intra-coronary delivery of tirofiban through aspiration catheter led to better myocardial perfusion in STEMI patients over 60 years of age undergoing PCI compared with intra-coronary injection of tirofiban through guiding catheter. The 2 delivery routes were associated with similar rates of MACCEs and bleeding events.
本研究旨在比较在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的60岁以上ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者中,两种冠状动脉内注射替罗非班的方法(抽吸导管与引导导管)的疗效和安全性。有人提出冠状动脉内注射替罗非班可促进病变区域的药物吸收,增强对血小板聚集的抑制作用,降低出血率,但对于使用引导导管与抽吸导管给药的相对有效性和安全性知之甚少。89例60岁以上接受PCI的STEMI患者根据冠状动脉内注射替罗非班的途径随机分为两组[引导导管组(n = 41)和抽吸导管组(n = 48)]。比较两组患者的基线特征、心外膜和心肌灌注、主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)及出血率。两组患者在年龄、性别、高血压、高胆固醇血症、糖尿病等病史方面无差异(P>0.05)。抽吸导管组患者脑血管疾病的发生率普遍较高。与引导导管组相比,抽吸导管组患者的心肌灌注更理想(P<0.05)。在住院期间以及3个月和6个月随访时,两组的MACCE发生率和出血事件频率相似(P>0.05)。与通过引导导管冠状动脉内注射替罗非班相比,在接受PCI的60岁以上STEMI患者中,通过抽吸导管冠状动脉内给药可使心肌灌注更佳。两种给药途径的MACCE发生率和出血事件发生率相似。