Suppr超能文献

在ST段抬高型心肌梗死管理中,药物介入策略与直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗相比的疗效和安全性:一项全国性前瞻性登记研究。

Efficacy and Safety of Pharmacoinvasive Strategy Compared to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Management of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Prospective Country-Wide Registry.

作者信息

Zubaid Mohammad, Khraishah Haitham, Alahmad Barrak, Rashed Wafa, Ridha Mustafa, Alenezi Fahad, Aljarralah Mohamad, Al-Marri Khalid, Almutairi Mohammad, Althalji Khalid, Alfaddagh Abdulhamied

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, KW.

Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, US.

出版信息

Ann Glob Health. 2020 Feb 5;86(1):13. doi: 10.5334/aogh.2632.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

A pharmacoinvasive reperfusion strategy is recommended for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients when primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cannot be achieved in a timely fashion. This is based on a limited number of trials. The effectiveness of this strategy in the real-world is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of pharmacoinvasive strategy versus primary PCI using a nationwide prospective registry of STEMI patients.

METHODS

We examined 936 STEMI patients from the reperfusion in ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Kuwait (REPERFUSE Kuwait) registry who underwent either primary PCI or pharmacoinvasive reperfusion. A composite outcome was measured based on death, congestive heart failure, reinfarction or stroke prospectively ascertained during hospital stay and up to one-year follow-up. The association between reperfusion strategy and the composite outcome was assessed using multivariate regression and Poisson proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

Compared to the pharmacoinvasive group, those undergoing primary PCI had higher Killip class on presentation and required more blood transfusions during hospitalization. There was no significant difference between primary PCI and pharmacoinvasive strategy with regards to the incidence of the composite outcome during the in-hospital period (RR = 1.0; 95% CI 0.98-1.02; p = 0.96) after adjustment for possible confounders. Over one-year follow-up, the survival of the two groups was not different (p = 0.66). The incidence of major bleeding was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

STEMI patients treated with a pharmacoinvasive strategy have comparable outcomes to those treated with primary PCI with no increased risk of major bleeding. These real-world data support the use of a pharmacoinvasive strategy when primary PCI cannot be achieved in a timely fashion.

摘要

背景

对于无法及时进行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者,推荐采用药物介入再灌注策略。这是基于数量有限的试验得出的结论。该策略在现实世界中的有效性尚不清楚。

目的

通过一项全国性的STEMI患者前瞻性登记研究,比较药物介入策略与直接PCI的有效性。

方法

我们研究了科威特ST段抬高型心肌梗死再灌注(REPERFUSE Kuwait)登记研究中的936例STEMI患者,这些患者接受了直接PCI或药物介入再灌注治疗。基于住院期间及长达一年随访期间前瞻性确定的死亡、充血性心力衰竭、再梗死或中风情况,测量复合结局。使用多变量回归和泊松比例风险模型评估再灌注策略与复合结局之间的关联。

结果

与药物介入组相比,接受直接PCI的患者就诊时Killip分级更高,住院期间需要更多输血。在调整可能的混杂因素后,直接PCI与药物介入策略在住院期间复合结局的发生率方面无显著差异(相对危险度=1.0;95%可信区间0.98 - 1.02;p = 0.96)。在一年的随访中,两组的生存率无差异(p = 0.66)。两组大出血的发生率相似。

结论

采用药物介入策略治疗的STEMI患者与接受直接PCI治疗的患者结局相当,且大出血风险未增加。这些现实世界的数据支持在无法及时进行直接PCI时使用药物介入策略。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ff6b/7006601/840298971338/agh-86-1-2632-g1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验