Hackworthy R A, Sorensen S G, Fitzpatrick P G, Barry W H, Menlove R L, Rothbard R L, Anderson J L
University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Am J Cardiol. 1988 Sep 15;62(9):538-42. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(88)90651-0.
The angiographic films of 240 patients with acute myocardial infarction were studied in a randomized trial of intravenous anisoylated plasminogen streptokinase activator complex (APSAC) versus intracoronary streptokinase therapies. The interobserver variability of grading coronary artery perfusion by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group (TIMI) criteria was measured as well as the effect of different definitions of reperfusion on the determination of reperfusion rate. There was good agreement in the reading of infarct artery flow grades between 2 blinded observers for each grade considered separately (k = 0.726 +/- 0.014) and for grades 0 or 1 (no perfusion) versus grades 2 or 3 (perfusion) (k = 0.905 +/- 0.011). Discordance between grades 0 or 1 versus 2 or 3 occurred in 74 (5%) of the 1,615 angiographic readings. Discrepancies of clinical significance which affected qualification for study entry, reperfusion or reocclusion status occurred in only 15 patients (6%). Grade 1 flow was found to have the most variable interpretation. Reperfusion rates for APSAC and streptokinase differed significantly when reperfusion was defined by 3 different criteria. The reperfusion rate ranged from 51 to 72% for APSAC and from 60 to 75% for streptokinase depending upon criteria selected. For comparison of the results of different thrombolytic studies, a standard semiquantitative system for grading infarct artery perfusion should be used, readings should be blinded and the criteria used for the definition of reperfusion should be clearly specified.
在一项关于静脉注射茴香酰化纤溶酶原链激酶激活剂复合物(APSAC)与冠状动脉内链激酶治疗的随机试验中,对240例急性心肌梗死患者的血管造影影片进行了研究。测量了心肌梗死溶栓研究组(TIMI)标准对冠状动脉灌注分级的观察者间变异性,以及不同再灌注定义对再灌注率测定的影响。对于每个单独考虑的分级,两位盲法观察者在梗死动脉血流分级的判读上有良好的一致性(k = 0.726±0.014),对于0级或1级(无灌注)与2级或3级(灌注)也有良好的一致性(k = 0.905±0.011)。在1615次血管造影判读中,有74次(5%)出现了0级或1级与2级或3级之间的不一致。仅15例患者(6%)出现了影响研究入选资格、再灌注或再闭塞状态的具有临床意义的差异。发现1级血流的解释最具变异性。当用3种不同标准定义再灌注时,APSAC和链激酶的再灌注率有显著差异。根据所选标准,APSAC的再灌注率在51%至72%之间,链激酶的再灌注率在60%至75%之间。为了比较不同溶栓研究的结果,应使用标准的半定量系统对梗死动脉灌注进行分级,判读应采用盲法,并且应明确规定用于定义再灌注的标准。