• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克患者接受仅针对罪犯血管或多支血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的长期死亡率比较

Long-Term Mortality Comparison of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock and Treated With Culprit-Only or Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

作者信息

Vergara Ruben, Vignini Elisa, Ciabatti Michele, Migliorini Angela, Valenti Renato, Antoniucci David

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Careggi-Hospital, Florence, Italy.

Division of Cardiology, Careggi-Hospital, Florence, Italy.

出版信息

Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021 Jan;22:10-15. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.06.021. Epub 2020 Jun 18.

DOI:10.1016/j.carrev.2020.06.021
PMID:32605903
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether, in a real word context of patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), multivessel disease (MVD) and cardiogenic shock (CS), the successful treatment with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (p-PCI) of only culprit lesions (OC-PCI) is associated with better long-term mortality rates than multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) of all significant lesions.

METHODS

From our registry of all consecutive patients admitted for AMI between January 1995 and December 2016 we selected those presenting with CS and MVD successfully treated with p-PCI, and compared those who underwent OC-PCI against MV-PCI, either during the p-PCI (MV-pPCI) or by staged revascularization (Staged-PCI) during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was 2-year all-cause death.

RESULTS

Among 4210 patients with AMI, 406 (9.6%) presented CS (Killip class IV). A total of 292 patients had MVD. Of them, 252 (86.3%) were successfully treated with p-PCI, 159 patients with OC-PCI and 93 with MV-PCI, either in the same (n = 29) or staged procedure (n = 64). At 2-year follow-up the overall mortality was 47.6%, lower in MV-PCI group (37.6% vs 53.5% in OC-PCI, p = 0.019). Diabetes (HR = 1.50, 1.01-2.22), three vessel disease (HR = 1.49, 1.02-2.17) and basal left ventricular ejection fraction <15% (HR = 3.39, 2.41-6.27) were independent predictors of mortality, while MV-PCI was the only variable associated with improved survival (HR = 0.54, 0.36-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real world registry of AMI patients with MVD presenting CS, MV-PCI was associated with better long-term survival.

摘要

目的

我们试图确定,在急性心肌梗死(AMI)、多支血管病变(MVD)和心源性休克(CS)患者的实际临床情况下,仅对罪犯病变进行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(p-PCI,即OC-PCI)与对所有显著病变进行多支血管PCI(MV-PCI)相比,长期死亡率是否更低。

方法

从我们1995年1月至2016年12月收治的所有连续AMI患者登记册中,我们选择了那些成功接受p-PCI治疗的CS和MVD患者,并比较了在p-PCI期间(MV-pPCI)或住院期间分期血运重建(分期PCI)接受OC-PCI与MV-PCI治疗的患者。主要终点是2年全因死亡。

结果

在4210例AMI患者中,406例(9.6%)出现CS(Killip分级IV级)。共有292例患者存在MVD。其中,252例(86.3%)成功接受了p-PCI治疗,159例接受OC-PCI治疗,93例接受MV-PCI治疗,其中同期治疗(n = 29)或分期治疗(n = 64)。在2年随访时,总体死亡率为47.6%,MV-PCI组较低(37.6% vs OC-PCI组的53.5%,p = 0.019)。糖尿病(HR = 1.50,1.01 - 2.22)、三支血管病变(HR = 1.49,1.02 - 2.17)和基础左心室射血分数<15%(HR = 3.39,2.41 - 6.27)是死亡率的独立预测因素,而MV-PCI是与生存改善相关的唯一变量(HR = 0.54,0.36 - 0.81)。

结论

在这个存在CS的MVD的AMI患者真实世界登记研究中,MV-PCI与更好的长期生存相关。

相似文献

1
Long-Term Mortality Comparison of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock and Treated With Culprit-Only or Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克患者接受仅针对罪犯血管或多支血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的长期死亡率比较
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021 Jan;22:10-15. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.06.021. Epub 2020 Jun 18.
2
Culprit-Only Versus Immediate Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicating Advanced Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Venoarterial-Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.急性心肌梗合并需要静脉动脉体外膜肺氧合的晚期心源性休克患者中,罪犯血管血运重建与即刻多血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的比较。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 May 16;12(10):e029792. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.123.029792. Epub 2023 May 9.
3
Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI.仅罪犯血管血运重建与多血管血运重建治疗心肌梗死合并心原性休克患者的结局比较。
Hellenic J Cardiol. 2024 Mar-Apr;76:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.hjc.2023.08.009. Epub 2023 Aug 24.
4
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and cardiogenic shock: the role of primary multivessel revascularization.急性心肌梗死、心搏骤停复苏后和心原性休克患者的直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗:多血管血运重建的作用。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Feb;6(2):115-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.10.006. Epub 2013 Jan 23.
5
Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock.多血管病变与罪犯血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗心原性休克。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 May 25;13(10):1171-1178. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.03.012. Epub 2020 Apr 29.
6
Outcomes of multivessel vs culprit lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Evidence from an updated meta-analysis.多血管病变与罪犯病变-only 经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死并发心原性休克患者的结局:来自更新荟萃分析的证据。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jul 1;94(1):70-81. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28062. Epub 2018 Dec 28.
7
Culprit Vessel-Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Collaborative Meta-Analysis.罪犯血管血运重建与多支血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗并发心原性休克的 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者:一项协作荟萃分析。
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Nov;10(11). doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005582.
8
Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.多支血管病变与罪犯病变血运重建治疗并发急性心肌梗死后心原性休克:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018 Feb;7(1):28-37. doi: 10.1177/2048872617719640. Epub 2017 Jul 13.
9
Culprit Vessel-Only vs. Staged Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.在接受ST段抬高型心肌梗死直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的多支冠状动脉疾病患者中,罪犯血管单独干预与分期多支血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗策略的比较
Circ J. 2016;80(2):371-8. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-15-0493. Epub 2015 Nov 20.
10
Culprit-only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention among STEMI patients complicated by cardiogenic shock in real-world practice: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.真实世界实践中合并心原性休克的 STEMI 患者中罪犯血管与多血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的比较:一项更新的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Ann Palliat Med. 2021 Aug;10(8):8628-8641. doi: 10.21037/apm-21-1408. Epub 2021 Aug 3.

引用本文的文献

1
A riddle of culprit only vs multivessel or immediate vs staged revascularization in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis.非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征患者中仅罪犯血管与多支血管病变或即刻与分期血运重建之谜:一项荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2025 Mar 18;20(3):e0310695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310695. eCollection 2025.