Michels K B, Yusuf S
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass.
Circulation. 1995 Jan 15;91(2):476-85. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.91.2.476.
Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) is often performed after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) either as an adjuvant to thrombolytic therapy or instead of thrombolysis. The effect of PTCA in AMI on mortality and reinfarction has remained unclear, with the available randomized trials indicating inconsistent results.
A systematic overview (meta-analysis) of the randomized trials was conducted to assess the effect of PTCA in AMI on mortality and reinfarction rates. Data from 7 trials in which primary PTCA was evaluated and 16 trials in which PTCA after thrombolysis was studied were included in this overview, comprising a total of 8496 patient. The trials represented different approaches to the timing of PTCA after AMI. The trials of PTCA after thrombolytic therapy were also categorized according to the different protocols with respect to the routine or elective character of PTCA in the invasive group. A reduction in short-term (6 week) mortality (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33, 0.94) and in the combined outcome of short-term mortality and nonfatal reinfarction (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35, 0.80) was observed in the trials comparing primary PTCA with thrombolytic therapy. In contrast, in trials in which an approach of thrombolysis and PTCA was compared with thrombolytic therapy alone, there was no important difference in early mortality, with an apparent reduction in mortality between 6 and 52 weeks. The lower mortality between 6 and 52 weeks among 6-week survivors seemed to be restricted to the subgroup of trials in which PTCA was used as a routine strategy (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39, 0.87).
Although the analyses of the various categories of trials suggest that primary PTCA may be more beneficial than thrombolytic therapy in AMI, these data should be interpreted cautiously unless confirmed by larger studies. In contrast, the addition of various other strategies of PTCA to thrombolytic therapy does not convincingly indicate a clinically different outcome than if a more conservative strategy is followed, in which PTCA is used only if clinically indicated. Some specific strategies, however, such as rescue PTCA in high-risk patients with occluded arteries, may be of benefit.
经皮腔内冠状动脉成形术(PTCA)常在急性心肌梗死(AMI)后进行,作为溶栓治疗的辅助手段或替代溶栓治疗。PTCA对AMI患者死亡率和再梗死率的影响仍不明确,现有的随机试验结果并不一致。
对随机试验进行系统综述(荟萃分析),以评估PTCA对AMI患者死亡率和再梗死率的影响。本综述纳入了7项评估直接PTCA的试验和16项研究溶栓后PTCA的试验,共8496例患者。这些试验代表了AMI后PTCA时机的不同方法。溶栓治疗后PTCA的试验也根据侵入性治疗组中PTCA的常规或选择性特点的不同方案进行分类。在比较直接PTCA与溶栓治疗的试验中,观察到短期(6周)死亡率降低(优势比,0.56;95%CI,0.33,0.94),以及短期死亡率和非致死性再梗死的联合结局降低(优势比,0.53;95%CI,0.35,0.80)。相比之下,在比较溶栓联合PTCA与单纯溶栓治疗的试验中,早期死亡率没有显著差异,6至52周之间死亡率明显降低。6周幸存者中6至52周较低的死亡率似乎仅限于将PTCA作为常规策略的试验亚组(优势比,0.58;95%CI,0.39,0.87)。
尽管各类试验分析表明,直接PTCA在AMI中可能比溶栓治疗更有益,但除非有更大规模研究证实,这些数据应谨慎解读。相比之下,在溶栓治疗基础上加用其他各种PTCA策略,与采用更保守策略(仅在临床指征明确时使用PTCA)相比,并未令人信服地显示出临床结局有差异。然而,一些特定策略,如对动脉闭塞的高危患者进行补救性PTCA,可能有益。