Fernando P B, Ferreira A, Dias P, Moura L, Cortez M, Capucho R, Maciel M J, Brandão F, Gomes M C
Interno Complementar de Medicina Interna do Serviço de Medicina 3 do Hospital de São João.
Rev Port Cardiol. 1996 Sep;15(9):617-30, 611.
To analyse the clinical practice concerning the pharmacological therapy of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), comparing it with the guidelines for the management of AMI and exploring the reasons for its under use or over use.
Retrospective analysis of clinical records of patients with the discharge diagnosis of AMI.
A central hospital in the North of Portugal.
One hundred and ninety-one patients admitted to the Internal Medicine Department of a central hospital in the North of Portugal between January 1, 1993, and December 31, 1994.
Thrombolytic therapy was performed in 24.1% of the patients. At discharge 32.6% of the patients were on therapy with beta blockers, 68% with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and 88.4% with aspirin. Stepwise logistic regression produced the following odds ratios for the variables significantly associated with: a) thrombolytic therapy: hypertension - 0.38; non-Q wave infarction - 0.17; time between onset of symptoms and hospital admission greater than 6 hours - 0.18; admission to coronary unit - 14.72; b) beta blocker therapy: age > 60 years - 0.23; serum LDH > 1000 U/L - 0.41; diastolic blood pressure > 85 mmHg - 3.73; Killip > 1 - 0.08; concomitant therapy with calcium antagonist - 0.33; previous therapy with beta blocker - 14.87; hospital stay greater than 10 days - 2.67; c) ACEI therapy: anterior wall infarction - 3.07; non Q wave infarction - 0.13; congestive heart failure - 9.36; serum creatinine > or = 15 mg/dl - 0.03.
Beta blockers and thrombolytic are under used and ACEI overused. The delay in hospital admission is the most important factor opposing the use of thrombolytic therapy, imposing the need for measures that ean reduce this delay. Therapy with beta blockers (highly cost-effective) can be increased by educational intervention among the physicians. The overuse of ACEI can be ascribed to the good results of randomised trials.
分析急性心肌梗死(AMI)药物治疗的临床实践情况,将其与AMI管理指南进行比较,并探究治疗不足或过度治疗的原因。
对出院诊断为AMI的患者临床记录进行回顾性分析。
葡萄牙北部的一家中心医院。
1993年1月1日至1994年12月31日期间,葡萄牙北部一家中心医院内科收治的191例患者。
24.1%的患者接受了溶栓治疗。出院时,32.6%的患者接受β受体阻滞剂治疗,68%接受血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)治疗,88.4%接受阿司匹林治疗。逐步逻辑回归得出以下与各变量显著相关的比值比:a)溶栓治疗:高血压-0.38;非Q波梗死-0.17;症状发作至入院时间大于6小时-0.18;入住冠心病监护病房-14.72;b)β受体阻滞剂治疗:年龄>60岁-0.23;血清乳酸脱氢酶>1000 U/L-0.41;舒张压>85 mmHg-3.73;Killip分级>1-0.08;同时使用钙拮抗剂-0.33;既往使用过β受体阻滞剂-14.87;住院时间大于10天-2.67;c)ACEI治疗:前壁梗死-3.07;非Q波梗死-0.13;充血性心力衰竭-9.36;血清肌酐≥15 mg/dl-0.03。
β受体阻滞剂和溶栓治疗使用不足,ACEI使用过度。入院延迟是阻碍使用溶栓治疗的最重要因素,因此需要采取措施减少这种延迟。通过对医生进行教育干预,可以增加(性价比高的)β受体阻滞剂治疗的使用。ACEI的过度使用可能归因于随机试验的良好结果。