Suppr超能文献

急性心肌梗死的前负荷重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂、茴香酰化纤溶酶原链激酶激活剂复合物及联合溶栓治疗的比较:心肌梗死溶栓治疗(TIMI)4试验结果

Comparison of front-loaded recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator, anistreplase and combination thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: results of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 4 trial.

作者信息

Cannon C P, McCabe C H, Diver D J, Herson S, Greene R M, Shah P K, Sequeira R F, Leya F, Kirshenbaum J M, Magorien R D

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

出版信息

J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994 Dec;24(7):1602-10. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(94)90163-5.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to determine a superior thrombolytic regimen from three: anistreplase (APSAC), front-loaded recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) or combination thrombolytic therapy.

BACKGROUND

Although thrombolytic therapy has been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity after acute myocardial infarction, it has not been clear whether more aggressive thrombolytic-antithrombotic regimens could improve the outcome achieved with standard regimens.

METHODS

To address this issue, 382 patients with acute myocardial infarction were randomized to receive in a double-blind fashion (along with intravenous heparin and aspirin) APSAC, front-loaded rt-PA or a combination of both agents. The primary end point "unsatisfactory outcome" was a composite clinical end point assessed through hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Patency of the infarct-related artery (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] grade 2 or 3 flow) at 60 min after the start of thrombolysis was significantly higher in rt-PA-treated patients (77.8% vs. 59.5% for APSAC-treated patients and 59.3% for combination-treated patients [rt-PA vs. APSAC, p = 0.02; rt-PA vs. combination, p = 0.03]). At 90 min, the incidence of both infarct-related artery patency and TIMI grade 3 flow was significantly higher in rt-PA-treated patients (60.2% had TIMI grade 3 flow vs. 42.9% and 44.8% of APSAC- and combination-treated patients, respectively [rt-PA vs. APSAC, p < 0.01; rt-PA vs. combination, p = 0.02]). The incidence of unsatisfactory outcome was 41.3% for rt-PA compared with 49% for APSAC and 53.6% for the combination (rt-PA vs. APSAC, p = 0.19; rt-PA vs. combination, p = 0.06). The mortality rate at 6 weeks was lowest in the rt-PA-treated patients (2.2% vs. 8.8% for APSAC and 7.2% for combination thrombolytic therapy [rt-PA vs. APSAC, p = 0.02; rt-PA vs. combination, p = 0.06]).

CONCLUSIONS

Front-loaded rt-PA achieved significantly higher rates of early reperfusion and was associated with trends toward better overall clinical benefit and survival than those achieved with a standard thrombolytic agent or combination thrombolytic therapy. These findings support the concept that more rapid reperfusion of the infarct-related artery is associated with improved clinical outcome.

摘要

目的

我们研究的目的是从三种溶栓方案中确定一种更优方案:茴酰化纤溶酶原链激酶激活剂复合物(APSAC)、负荷剂量重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(rt-PA)或联合溶栓治疗。

背景

尽管溶栓治疗已被证明可降低急性心肌梗死后的死亡率和发病率,但更积极的溶栓-抗栓方案是否能改善标准方案的治疗效果尚不清楚。

方法

为解决这一问题,382例急性心肌梗死患者被随机双盲接受(联合静脉肝素和阿司匹林)APSAC、负荷剂量rt-PA或两种药物联合治疗。主要终点“不满意结局”是一个通过出院时评估的综合临床终点。

结果

溶栓开始后60分钟时,rt-PA治疗组梗死相关动脉通畅率(心肌梗死溶栓试验[TIMI]2级或3级血流)显著高于APSAC治疗组(77.8%对59.5%)和联合治疗组(59.3%)[rt-PA与APSAC相比,p = 0.02;rt-PA与联合治疗相比,p = 0.03]。90分钟时,rt-PA治疗组梗死相关动脉通畅率和TIMI 3级血流发生率均显著更高(60.2%有TIMI 3级血流,而APSAC治疗组和联合治疗组分别为42.9%和44.8%)[rt-PA与APSAC相比,p < 0.01;rt-PA与联合治疗相比,p = 0.02]。rt-PA组不满意结局发生率为41.3%,APSAC组为49%,联合治疗组为53.6%(rt-PA与APSAC相比,p = 0.19;rt-PA与联合治疗相比,p = 0.06)。rt-PA治疗组6周时死亡率最低(2.2%,而APSAC组为8.8%,联合溶栓治疗组为7.2%)[rt-PA与APSAC相比,p = 0.02;rt-PA与联合治疗相比,p = 0.06]。

结论

负荷剂量rt-PA实现了显著更高的早期再灌注率,与标准溶栓剂或联合溶栓治疗相比,在总体临床获益和生存方面有更好趋势。这些发现支持梗死相关动脉更快再灌注与改善临床结局相关的概念。

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