Boden W E, O'Rourke R A, Crawford M H, Blaustein A S, Deedwania P C, Zoble R G, Wexler L F, Kleiger R E, Pepine C J, Ferry D R, Chow B K, Lavori P W
Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the State University of New York Health Science Center, Syracuse 13210, USA.
N Engl J Med. 1998 Jun 18;338(25):1785-92. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199806183382501.
Non-Q-wave myocardial infarction is usually managed according to an "invasive" strategy (i.e., one of routine coronary angiography followed by myocardial revascularization).
We randomly assigned 920 patients to either "invasive" management (462 patients) or "conservative" management, defined as medical therapy and noninvasive testing, with subsequent invasive management if indicated by the development of spontaneous or inducible ischemia (458 patients), within 72 hours of the onset of a non-Q-wave infarction. Death or nonfatal infarction made up the combined primary end point.
During an average follow-up of 23 months, 152 events (80 deaths and 72 nonfatal infarctions) occurred in 138 patients who had been randomly assigned to the invasive strategy, and 139 events (59 deaths and 80 nonfatal infarctions) in 123 patients assigned to the conservative strategy (P=0.35). Patients assigned to the invasive strategy had worse clinical outcomes during the first year of follow-up. The number of patients with one of the components of the primary end point (death or nonfatal myocardial infarction) and the number who died were significantly higher in the invasive-strategy group at hospital discharge (36 vs. 15 patients, P=0.004, for the primary end point; 21 vs. 6, P=0.007, for death), at one month (48 vs. 26, P=0.012; 23 vs. 9, P=0.021), and at one year (111 vs. 85, P=0.05; 58 vs. 36, P= 0.025). Overall mortality during follow-up did not differ significantly between patients assigned to the conservative-strategy group and those assigned to the invasive-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.51 to 1.01).
Most patients with non-Q-wave myocardial infarction do not benefit from routine, early invasive management consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization. A conservative, ischemia-guided initial approach is both safe and effective.
非Q波心肌梗死通常按照“侵入性”策略进行处理(即常规冠状动脉造影后进行心肌血运重建的策略之一)。
我们将920例患者随机分为“侵入性”处理组(462例患者)或“保守”处理组,“保守”处理定义为药物治疗和非侵入性检查,若出现自发性或诱发性缺血则随后进行侵入性处理(458例患者),在非Q波梗死发作72小时内进行分组。死亡或非致命性梗死构成联合主要终点。
在平均23个月的随访期间,随机分配至侵入性策略组的138例患者发生了152起事件(80例死亡和72例非致命性梗死),分配至保守策略组的123例患者发生了139起事件(59例死亡和80例非致命性梗死)(P = 0.35)。分配至侵入性策略组的患者在随访的第一年临床结局较差。侵入性策略组在出院时(主要终点:36例对15例,P = 0.004;死亡:21例对6例,P = 0.007)、1个月时(48例对26例,P = 0.012;23例对9例,P = 0.021)和1年时(111例对85例,P = 0.05;58例对36例,P = 0.025),主要终点的一个组成部分(死亡或非致命性心肌梗死)的患者数量和死亡患者数量显著更高。随访期间,分配至保守策略组的患者与分配至侵入性策略组的患者总体死亡率无显著差异(风险比,0.72;95%置信区间,0.51至1.01)。
大多数非Q波心肌梗死患者无法从由冠状动脉造影和血运重建组成的常规早期侵入性处理中获益。保守的、缺血引导的初始处理方法既安全又有效。