• 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

瑞替普酶双剂量给药与链激酶治疗急性心肌梗死的随机双盲比较研究(INJECT):等效性研究。溶栓药物国际联合疗效比较研究。

Randomised, double-blind comparison of reteplase double-bolus administration with streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction (INJECT): trial to investigate equivalence. International Joint Efficacy Comparison of Thrombolytics.

出版信息

Lancet. 1995 Aug 5;346(8971):329-36.

PMID:7623530
Abstract

Streptokinase and alteplase are established therapies in acute myocardial infarction. Reteplase is a new thrombolytic agent that can be given as a double bolus. This trial was designed to determine whether the effect of reteplase on survival was at least equivalent (within 1% of fatality rate) to that of a standard streptokinase regimen. Patients from 208 centres in nine countries (n = 6010) with symptoms and electrocardiographic criteria consistent with acute myocardial infarction were randomised to receive double-blind either streptokinase 1.5 MU intravenously over 60 min or reteplase two boluses of 10 MU given 30 min apart. Treatment could be started up to 12 h from onset of symptoms. All patients received intravenous heparin for at least 24 h. The primary endpoint was 35-day outcome. There were 270 deaths (9.02%) in the reteplase and 285 deaths (9.53%) in the streptokinase group, a non-significant difference (95% CI -1.98% to 0.96%). Among patients who received treatment (98.8%) there were 263 deaths (8.90%) in the reteplase compared with 279 deaths (9.43%) in the streptokinase group (a difference of -0.53%). Because the upper limit of the 90% CI for this difference is 0.71%, this result shows that reteplase is at least as effective as streptokinase. In-hospital stroke rates were 1.23% for reteplase and 1.00% for streptokinase. Bleeding events were similar in the two treatment groups (0.7% reteplase, 1.0% streptokinase). The incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction was similar, but there were significantly fewer cases of atrial fibrillation, asystole, cardiac shock, heart failure, and hypotension in the reteplase group. We conclude that reteplase is an effective drug in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. It is clinically safe, its administration is simple, and it will be a useful addition to the range of thrombolytic agents available.

摘要

链激酶和阿替普酶是急性心肌梗死的既定治疗方法。瑞替普酶是一种新型溶栓剂,可采用两次大剂量推注给药。本试验旨在确定瑞替普酶对生存率的影响是否至少与标准链激酶治疗方案相当(死亡率相差1%以内)。来自9个国家208个中心的患者(n = 6010),出现符合急性心肌梗死的症状和心电图标准,被随机双盲分组,分别接受静脉注射150万单位链激酶(60分钟内输完)或瑞替普酶(两次推注,每次100万单位,间隔30分钟)治疗。治疗可在症状出现后12小时内开始。所有患者至少接受24小时静脉肝素治疗。主要终点是35天的预后情况。瑞替普酶组有270例死亡(9.02%),链激酶组有285例死亡(9.53%),差异无统计学意义(95%可信区间为-1.98%至0.96%)。在接受治疗的患者中(98.8%),瑞替普酶组有263例死亡(8.90%),链激酶组有279例死亡(9.43%)(差异为-0.53%)。由于该差异的90%可信区间上限为0.71%,这一结果表明瑞替普酶至少与链激酶一样有效。瑞替普酶组的院内卒中发生率为1.23%,链激酶组为1.00%。两个治疗组的出血事件相似(瑞替普酶组为0.7%,链激酶组为1.0%)。复发性心肌梗死的发生率相似,但瑞替普酶组的心房颤动、心搏骤停、心源性休克、心力衰竭和低血压病例明显较少。我们得出结论,瑞替普酶是治疗急性心肌梗死的有效药物。它临床安全,给药简单,将成为现有溶栓药物中的有益补充。

相似文献

1
Randomised, double-blind comparison of reteplase double-bolus administration with streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction (INJECT): trial to investigate equivalence. International Joint Efficacy Comparison of Thrombolytics.瑞替普酶双剂量给药与链激酶治疗急性心肌梗死的随机双盲比较研究(INJECT):等效性研究。溶栓药物国际联合疗效比较研究。
Lancet. 1995 Aug 5;346(8971):329-36.
2
Clinical trials in thrombolytic therapy: what do they tell us? INJECT 6-month outcomes data.溶栓治疗的临床试验:它们告诉了我们什么?INJECT研究6个月的结果数据。
Am J Cardiol. 1996 Dec 19;78(12A):20-3. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(96)00739-4.
3
Reteplase. A review of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in the management of acute myocardial infarction.瑞替普酶。其药理学特性及治疗急性心肌梗死临床疗效的综述。
Drugs. 1996 Oct;52(4):589-605. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199652040-00012.
4
Comparisons of characteristics and outcomes among women and men with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy. GUSTO-I investigators.接受溶栓治疗的急性心肌梗死女性和男性患者的特征及预后比较。GUSTO-I研究组。
JAMA. 1996 Mar 13;275(10):777-82.
5
Reteplase: new preparation. Minimal value: bolus versus infusion.
Prescrire Int. 1998 Jun;7(35):73-4.
6
A comparison of reteplase with alteplase for acute myocardial infarction.瑞替普酶与阿替普酶治疗急性心肌梗死的比较。
N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 16;337(16):1118-23. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199710163371603.
7
Patency trials with reteplase (r-PA): what do they tell us?瑞替普酶(r-PA)通畅性试验:它们告诉了我们什么?
Am J Cardiol. 1996 Dec 19;78(12A):16-9. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(96)00738-2.
8
Thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 1997 May;11 Suppl 1:241-6. doi: 10.1023/a:1007731612283.
9
The role of thrombolytic drugs in the management of myocardial infarction. Comparative clinical trials.溶栓药物在心肌梗死治疗中的作用。比较临床试验。
Eur Heart J. 1996 Dec;17 Suppl F:9-15. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/17.suppl_f.9.
10
Randomized comparison of coronary thrombolysis achieved with double-bolus reteplase (recombinant plasminogen activator) and front-loaded, accelerated alteplase (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator) in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The RAPID II Investigators.双推注瑞替普酶(重组纤溶酶原激活剂)与前负荷加速阿替普酶(重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂)用于急性心肌梗死患者冠状动脉溶栓的随机对照比较。RAPID II研究组。
Circulation. 1996 Sep 1;94(5):891-8. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.94.5.891.

引用本文的文献

1
Outcomes of Time to Treatment With Reteplase for Acute Ischemic Stroke: The RAISE Trial Subgroup.瑞替普酶治疗急性缺血性卒中的治疗时间结果:RAISE试验亚组
JACC Asia. 2025 Apr;5(4):584-592. doi: 10.1016/j.jacasi.2024.12.010. Epub 2025 Feb 11.
2
Reteplase versus alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke within 4.5 hours (RAISE): rationale and design of a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, controlled phase 3 non-inferiority trial.瑞替普酶与阿替普酶治疗 4.5 小时内急性缺血性脑卒中(RAISE):一项多中心、前瞻性、随机、开放标签、盲终点、对照 3 期非劣效性试验的原理和设计。
Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2024 Nov 5;9(5):568-573. doi: 10.1136/svn-2023-003035.
3
A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Tenecteplase Versus Streptokinase in the Management of Myocardial Infarction in Developing Countries.
替奈普酶与链激酶在发展中国家心肌梗死治疗中疗效与安全性的系统评价
Cureus. 2023 Aug 25;15(8):e44125. doi: 10.7759/cureus.44125. eCollection 2023 Aug.
4
Application and risk prediction of thrombolytic therapy in cardio-cerebrovascular diseases: a review.溶栓治疗在心血管疾病中的应用及风险预测:综述
Thromb J. 2023 Sep 4;21(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12959-023-00532-0.
5
Transitioning to active-controlled trials to evaluate cardiovascular safety and efficacy of medications for type 2 diabetes.向活性对照试验过渡,以评估 2 型糖尿病药物的心血管安全性和疗效。
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2022 Aug 24;21(1):163. doi: 10.1186/s12933-022-01601-w.
6
Stenting in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的支架置入术
Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2018 Jan-Mar;14(1):14-22. doi: 10.14797/mdcj-14-1-14.
7
The evolution of recombinant thrombolytics: Current status and future directions.重组溶栓剂的演变:现状与未来方向。
Bioengineered. 2017 Jul 4;8(4):331-358. doi: 10.1080/21655979.2016.1229718. Epub 2016 Oct 3.
8
Cost-Effectiveness of Thrombolytic Therapy, Compared with Anticoagulants Therapy in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Albania.在阿尔巴尼亚,溶栓疗法与抗凝剂疗法治疗急性心肌梗死的成本效益比较
Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2015 Jun 15;3(2):341-4. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2015.060. Epub 2015 May 28.
9
Drug Treatment of STEMI in the Elderly: Focus on Fibrinolytic Therapy and Insights from the STREAM Trial.老年ST段抬高型心肌梗死的药物治疗:聚焦于溶栓治疗及STREAM试验的见解
Drugs Aging. 2016 Feb;33(2):109-18. doi: 10.1007/s40266-016-0345-6.
10
The pattern and risk factors associated with adverse drug reactions induced by Reteplase in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: The first report from Iranian population.急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者中瑞替普酶所致药物不良反应的模式及危险因素:来自伊朗人群的首份报告
J Res Pharm Pract. 2015 Oct-Dec;4(4):206-11. doi: 10.4103/2279-042X.167049.