N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 12;335(11):775-82. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609123351103.
Thrombin has a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of acute coronary thrombosis. We compared the clinical efficacy of a potent, direct thrombin inhibitor, recombinant hirudin, with that of heparin (an indirect antithrombin agent) in patients with unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction.
At 373 hospitals in 13 countries, 12,142 patients with acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned to 72 hours of therapy with either intravenous heparin or hirudin. Patients were stratified according to the presence of ST-segment elevation on the base-line electrocardiogram (4131 patients) or its absence (8011 patients), with the latter characteristic considered to indicate unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction.
At 24 hours, the risk of death or myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the group assigned to hirudin therapy than in the group assigned to heparin (1.3 percent vs. 2.1 percent, P = 0.001). The primary end point of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or reinfarction at 30 days was reached in 9.8 percent of the heparin group as compared with 8.9 percent of the hirudin group (odds ratio for the risk of the end point in hirudin group,0.89; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.00; P = 0.06). The predominant effect of hirudin was on myocardial infarction or reinfarction and was not influenced by ST-segment status. There were no significant differences in the incidence of serious or life-threatening bleeding complications, but hirudin therapy was associated with a higher incidence of moderate bleeding (8.8 percent vs. 7.7 percent, P = 0.03).
For acute coronary syndromes, recombinant hirudin provided a small advantage, as compared with heparin, principally related to a reduction in the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction. The relative therapeutic effect was more pronounced early (at 24 hours) but dissipated over time. The small benefit was consistent across the spectrum of acute coronary syndromes and was not associated with a greater risk of major bleeding complications.
凝血酶在急性冠状动脉血栓形成的发病机制中起关键作用。我们比较了强效直接凝血酶抑制剂重组水蛭素与肝素(一种间接抗凝血酶药物)对不稳定型心绞痛或急性心肌梗死患者的临床疗效。
在13个国家的373家医院,12142例急性冠状动脉综合征患者被随机分配接受静脉注射肝素或水蛭素治疗72小时。患者根据基线心电图上ST段抬高的情况(4131例患者)或无ST段抬高(8011例患者)进行分层,后者被认为提示不稳定型心绞痛或非Q波心肌梗死。
在24小时时,接受水蛭素治疗组的死亡或心肌梗死风险显著低于接受肝素治疗组(1.3%对2.1%,P = 0.001)。肝素组30天时死亡或非致命性心肌梗死或再梗死的主要终点发生率为9.8%,而水蛭素组为8.9%(水蛭素组终点风险的优势比为0.89;95%置信区间为0.79至1.00;P = 0.06)。水蛭素的主要作用是降低心肌梗死或再梗死风险,且不受ST段状态的影响。严重或危及生命的出血并发症发生率无显著差异,但水蛭素治疗组中度出血的发生率较高(8.8%对7.7%,P = 0.03)。
对于急性冠状动脉综合征,与肝素相比,重组水蛭素具有微小优势,主要与降低非致命性心肌梗死风险有关。相对治疗效果在早期(24小时时)更为明显,但随时间逐渐消失。这种微小益处贯穿急性冠状动脉综合征的各个类型,且与大出血并发症风险增加无关。