Vascular Research Laboratory, Mount Auburn Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Mt Auburn St, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2019 Dec;33(6):749-753. doi: 10.1007/s10557-019-06923-8.
Ever since tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) was approved for therapeutic fibrinolysis in 1987, it has been the fibrinolytic of choice. At the same time, it is also recognized that tPA never lived up to its clinical expectations and has more recently been replaced by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as the treatment of choice for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). For other occlusive vascular diseases and for patients in remote areas, tPA remains an essential option. In view of the continued importance of fibrinolysis, it is disappointing that fibrinolysis never evolved beyond what it was when tPA replaced streptokinase (SK) 32 years ago. The endovascular procedure replacement for AMI treatment suffers from being technically demanding, time-consuming, and costly. An untested alternative fibrinolytic paradigm is that of the endogenous, physiological system, which is initiated by tPA but then is followed by the other natural plasminogen activator, urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA). In this combination, it is uPA rather than tPA that has the dominant function. This is also evident from gene knockout studies where deletion of uPA that it has the dominant effect. The fibrinolytic properties of tPA and uPA are complementary so that their combined effect is synergistic, especially when they are administered sequentially starting with tPA. Endogenous fibrinolysis functions without bleeding side effects and is ongoing. This is evidenced by the invariable presence in blood of the fibrin degradation product, D-dimer (normal concentration 110-250 ng/ml). This activator combination, consisting of a mini bolus of tPA followed by a 90-min proUK infusion, was once used to treat 101 AMI patients. Compared with the best of the tPA mega trials, this regimen resulted in an almost a doubling of the infarct artery patency rate and reduced mortality sixfold. To date, a second trial has not yet been done.
自 1987 年组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(tPA)被批准用于治疗性纤溶以来,它一直是纤溶的首选药物。与此同时,也认识到 tPA 从未达到其临床预期,并且最近已被经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)取代,成为急性心肌梗死(AMI)的首选治疗方法。对于其他闭塞性血管疾病和偏远地区的患者,tPA 仍然是一个重要的选择。鉴于纤溶的持续重要性,令人失望的是,纤溶从未超出 32 年前 tPA 取代链激酶(SK)时的水平。血管内治疗取代 AMI 治疗的方法存在技术要求高、耗时和昂贵等问题。未经测试的替代纤溶范例是内源性生理系统,它由 tPA 启动,然后由另一种天然纤溶酶原激活剂尿激酶纤溶酶原激活剂(uPA)跟进。在这种组合中,起主导作用的是 uPA,而不是 tPA。这也可以从基因敲除研究中看出,在这些研究中,uPA 的缺失具有主导作用。tPA 和 uPA 的纤溶特性是互补的,因此它们的联合作用具有协同作用,尤其是当它们从 tPA 开始顺序给药时。内源性纤溶作用没有出血副作用,并且一直在进行。这可以从血液中始终存在纤维蛋白降解产物 D-二聚体(正常浓度 110-250ng/ml)得到证明。这种激活剂组合由 tPA 的小剂量推注和 90 分钟的 proUK 输注组成,曾经用于治疗 101 例 AMI 患者。与 tPA 最大试验中的最佳结果相比,该方案使梗死动脉通畅率几乎翻倍,并将死亡率降低了六倍。迄今为止,尚未进行第二项试验。