• 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

相似文献

1
Target Vessel Versus Complete Revascularization in Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Without Cardiogenic Shock.非ST段抬高型心肌梗死且无心源性休克患者的靶血管血运重建与完全血运重建对比
Cureus. 2022 Mar 14;14(3):e23139. doi: 10.7759/cureus.23139. eCollection 2022 Mar.
2
Culprit-only versus multivessel or complete versus incomplete revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention using newer-generation drug-eluting stents.在接受新一代药物洗脱支架成功经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的非 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死和多支血管病变患者中,罪犯血管血运重建与多血管或完全与不完全血运重建的比较。
Atherosclerosis. 2020 May;301:54-64. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2020.04.002. Epub 2020 Apr 9.
3
Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.多血管病变与罪犯血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗非 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死合并心原性休克患者。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 May 24;14(10):1067-1078. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.02.021. Epub 2021 Apr 28.
4
What is optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction? Multivessel or culprit-only revascularization.非 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者多支血管病变的最佳血运重建策略是什么?多支血管病变血运重建或罪犯血管血运重建。
Int J Cardiol. 2011 Dec 1;153(2):148-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.08.044. Epub 2010 Sep 16.
5
Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcome Between Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Infarct-Related Artery-Only Revascularization for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock.ST 段抬高型心肌梗死伴心原性休克患者行多支血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与梗死相关动脉血运重建的长期临床结局比较。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Dec 17;8(24):e013870. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013870. Epub 2019 Dec 10.
6
Impact of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with successful percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents: Comparison between STEMI and NSTEMI.血管紧张素转化酶抑制剂对成功行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗伴药物洗脱支架的急性心肌梗死患者长期临床结局的影响:STEMI 与 NSTEMI 比较。
Atherosclerosis. 2019 Jan;280:166-173. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2018.11.030. Epub 2018 Nov 27.
7
Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock.ST 段抬高型心肌梗死合并心原性休克患者的多支血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Feb 27;71(8):844-856. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.028.
8
Single-Staged Compared With Multi-Staged PCI in Multivessel NSTEMI Patients: The SMILE Trial.单阶段与多阶段 PCI 在多支血管非 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者中的比较:SMILE 试验。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jan 26;67(3):264-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.082.
9
Complete versus incomplete revascularization with drug-eluting stents for multi-vessel disease in stable, unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis.药物洗脱支架完全与不完全血运重建治疗稳定型、不稳定型心绞痛或非ST段抬高型心肌梗死多支血管病变的荟萃分析
J Interv Cardiol. 2017 Aug;30(4):309-317. doi: 10.1111/joic.12390. Epub 2017 Jun 1.
10
Clinical Outcomes According to ECG Presentations in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock in the Culprit Lesion Only PCI vs Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock Trial.仅罪犯病变 PCI 与心原性休克多支血管 PCI 比较的心原性休克试验中梗死相关心原性休克患者根据心电图表现的临床转归。
Chest. 2021 Apr;159(4):1415-1425. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.10.089. Epub 2020 Nov 26.

引用本文的文献

1
Complete Revascularization in NSTE-ACS and Multivessel Disease: Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Implications.非ST段抬高型急性冠脉综合征合并多支血管病变的完全血运重建:临床结局及预后意义
Life (Basel). 2025 Aug 15;15(8):1299. doi: 10.3390/life15081299.
2
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.

本文引用的文献

1
2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation.2020年欧洲心脏病学会非持续性ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征患者管理指南
Eur Heart J. 2021 Apr 7;42(14):1289-1367. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575.
2
Meta-analysis of multivessel versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease.非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征合并多支冠状动脉疾病患者多支血管与仅罪犯血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的荟萃分析
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Apr 15;115(8):1027-32. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.01.530. Epub 2015 Jan 31.
3
ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 Appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 冠状动脉血运重建适宜性标准更新重点:美国心脏病学会基金会适宜性标准专家组、心血管造影与介入学会、胸外科医师学会、美国胸外科学会、美国心脏协会、美国核医学学会和心血管计算机断层成像学会的报告。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Feb 28;59(9):857-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.12.001. Epub 2012 Jan 30.
4
Prima-vista multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in haemodynamically stable patients with acute coronary syndromes: analysis of over 4.400 patients in the EHS-PCI registry.急性冠状动脉综合征血流动力学稳定患者的即刻多血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗:EHS-PCI 注册研究中超过 4400 例患者的分析。
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Jul 1;166(3):596-600. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.11.024. Epub 2011 Dec 20.
5
Temporal trends in the treatment and outcomes of patients With non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Poland from 2004-2010 (from the Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes).2004-2010 年波兰非 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者的治疗和结局的时间趋势(来自波兰急性冠脉综合征注册研究)。
Am J Cardiol. 2012 Mar 15;109(6):779-86. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.10.041. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
6
ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)非持续性ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征患者管理指南:欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)非持续性ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)管理工作组。
Eur Heart J. 2011 Dec;32(23):2999-3054. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr236. Epub 2011 Aug 26.
7
Multivessel vs single-vessel revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease in the drug-eluting stent era.药物洗脱支架时代非 ST 段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征伴多支血管病变患者的多支血管与单支血管血运重建。
Clin Cardiol. 2011 Mar;34(3):160-5. doi: 10.1002/clc.20858.
8
What is optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction? Multivessel or culprit-only revascularization.非 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者多支血管病变的最佳血运重建策略是什么?多支血管病变血运重建或罪犯血管血运重建。
Int J Cardiol. 2011 Dec 1;153(2):148-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.08.044. Epub 2010 Sep 16.
9
Population trends in the incidence and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction.人口趋势对急性心肌梗死发病率和结局的影响。
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 10;362(23):2155-65. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908610.
10
Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes.急性冠状动脉综合征的早期与延迟侵入性干预
N Engl J Med. 2009 May 21;360(21):2165-75. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807986.

非ST段抬高型心肌梗死且无心源性休克患者的靶血管血运重建与完全血运重建对比

Target Vessel Versus Complete Revascularization in Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Without Cardiogenic Shock.

作者信息

Pandit Neeraj, Rahatekar Parag, Rekwal Lokendra, Kuber Dheerendra, Nath Ranjit K, Aggarwal Puneet

机构信息

Cardiology, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences (ABVIMS) and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital, New Delhi, IND.

Cardiology, Anika Heart Center, Nagpur, IND.

出版信息

Cureus. 2022 Mar 14;14(3):e23139. doi: 10.7759/cureus.23139. eCollection 2022 Mar.

DOI:10.7759/cureus.23139
PMID:35444901
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9009965/
Abstract

Introduction The role of complete revascularization (CR) vs target vessel revascularization (TVR) in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in patients without cardiogenic shock is still not established. In this study, we compared outcomes at one and six months among patients with NSTEMI with multivessel disease (MVD) undergoing CR vs TVR. Methods It was a prospective, observational study carried out among 60 NSTEMI patients with MVD (30 undergoing TVR and 30 CR) from October 2018 to November 2019. They were assessed at one and six months for primary and secondary outcomes. Results The mean age of the patients was 56.13 ± 9.23 years and both the groups were well matched with respect to age, gender, risk factors, and comorbidities. In the majority of patients, the target vessel was left anterior descending (LAD) followed by right coronary artery (RCA) and left circumflex (LCX) in both groups. The primary outcomes of death from any cause, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and the need for revascularization of the ischemia-driven vessel showed no significant difference at one and six months follow-up between the CR and TVR groups. However, the secondary outcomes of heart failure hospitalizations and angina episodes were significantly more in the TVR group than CR group at one month (6 vs 1, P=0.044), (8 vs 2, P=0.038) and six months (8 vs 2, P=0.038), (9 vs 2, P=0.02), respectively. Conclusion CR was associated with no difference in death from all-cause or future revascularization but significantly lesser secondary outcomes of heart failure hospitalizations and angina episodes as compared to TVR in NSTEMI without cardiogenic shock.

摘要

引言 在无心源性休克的非ST段抬高型心肌梗死(NSTEMI)患者中,完全血运重建(CR)与靶血管血运重建(TVR)的作用仍未明确。在本研究中,我们比较了多支血管病变(MVD)的NSTEMI患者接受CR与TVR后1个月和6个月时的结局。方法 这是一项前瞻性观察性研究,于2018年10月至2019年11月对60例患有MVD的NSTEMI患者(30例行TVR,30例行CR)进行。在1个月和6个月时对他们进行主要和次要结局评估。结果 患者的平均年龄为56.13±9.23岁,两组在年龄、性别、危险因素和合并症方面匹配良好。在大多数患者中,靶血管为左前降支(LAD),其次是右冠状动脉(RCA)和左旋支(LCX),两组情况均如此。在1个月和6个月的随访中,CR组和TVR组在任何原因导致的死亡、非致命性心肌梗死以及缺血驱动血管血运重建需求等主要结局方面均无显著差异。然而,在1个月时,TVR组心力衰竭住院和心绞痛发作的次要结局显著多于CR组(分别为6例对1例,P= 0.044),(8例对2例,P= 0.038);在6个月时,分别为(8例对2例,P= 0.038),(9例对2例,P= 0.02)。结论 在无心源性休克的NSTEMI患者中,CR与全因死亡或未来血运重建无差异,但与TVR相比,心力衰竭住院和心绞痛发作的次要结局显著更少。