首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Long-term outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs prehospital and in-hospital thrombolysis for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
【24h】

Long-term outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs prehospital and in-hospital thrombolysis for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

机译:ST抬高型心肌梗死患者的原发性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与院前和院内溶栓治疗的长期结果。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

CONTEXT: Whether the superior results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reported in clinical trials in which patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) received reperfusion treatment can be replicated in daily practice has been questioned, especially whether it is superior to prehospital thrombolysis (PHT). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of different reperfusion strategies in consecutive STEMI patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A prospective observational cohort study of 26 205 consecutive STEMI patients in the Register of Information and Knowledge about Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admissions (RIKS-HIA) who received reperfusion therapy within 15 hours of symptom onset. The registry includes more than 95% of all Swedish patients, of all ages, who were treated in a coronary intensive care unit between 1999 and 2004. INTERVENTIONS: Seven thousand eighty-four patients underwent primary PCI; 3078, PHT; and 16 043, in-hospital thrombolysis (IHT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, reinfarction, and readmissions as reported in the National Health Registries through December 31, 2005. RESULTS: After adjusting for younger age and less comorbidity, primary PCI was associated with lower mortality than IHT at 30 days (344 [4.9%] vs 1834 [11.4%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.71) and at 1 year (541 [7.6%] vs 2555 [15.9%]; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.76). Also primary PCI correlated with lower mortality than PHT at 30 days (344 [4.9%] vs 234 [7.6%]; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85) and 1 year (541 [7.6%] vs 317 [10.3%]; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.94). Prehospital thrombolysis predicted a lower mortality than IHT at 30 days (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01) and at 1 year (HR, 0.84; CI 0.74-0.95). Beyond 2 hours' treatment delay, the observed mortality reductions with PHT tended to decrease while the benefits with primary PCI seemed to remain regardless of time delay. Primary PCI was also associated with shorter hospital stay and less reinfarction than either PHT or IHT. CONCLUSIONS: In unselected patients with STEMI, primary PCI, which compared favorably with IHT and PHT, was associated with reduced duration of hospital stay, readmission, reinfarction, and mortality.
机译:背景:临床试验中报道的ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者接受再灌注治疗的临床试验中报道的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的优异结果是否可以在日常实践中重复使用一直受到质疑,尤其是它是否优于院前溶栓(PHT)。目的:评估连续STEMI患者不同再灌注策略的结果。设计,地点和患者:一项前瞻性观察性队列研究,研究对象为瑞典心脏病重症监护病房(RIKS-HIA)信息和知识登记册中的26205例连续STEMI患者,他们在症状发作后15小时内接受了再灌注治疗。该登记册涵盖了1999年至2004年间在冠心病重症监护病房接受治疗的所有年龄段的瑞典患者中的95%以上。干预措施:784例患者接受了原发性PCI。 3078,PHT;和16 043,医院内溶栓(IHT​​)。主要观察指标:截止2005年12月31日,美国国家卫生注册中心报告的死亡率,再梗塞和再入院。结果:在对年龄较小且合并症较少的人进行调整后,与30天内IHT相比,原发性PCI的死亡率较低(344 [4.9 %]比1834 [11.4%];危险比[HR]为0.61; 95%置信区间[CI]为0.53-0.71)和在1年时(541 [7.6%]对2555 [15.9%]; HR为0.68; 95%CI,0.60-0.76)。同样,原发性PCI与30天时死亡率低于PHT(344 [4.9%] vs 234 [7.6%]; HR,0.70; 95%CI,0.58-0.85)和1年死亡率(541 [7.6%] vs 317 [10.3] %]; HR,0.81; 95%CI,0.69-0.94)。院前溶栓治疗在30天(HR,0.87; 95%CI,0.76-1.01)和1年(HR,0.84; CI 0.74-0.95)时的死亡率低于IHT。超过2小时的治疗延迟后,观察到的PHT死亡率降低趋势有所降低,而无论何时进行延迟,原发PCI的益处似乎仍然存在。与PHT或IHT相比,原发性PCI还与住院时间短和再梗塞少相关。结论:在未选出的STEMI患者中,原发性PCI与IHT和PHT相比具有更好的住院时间,再入院率,再梗死和死亡率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号