直接经皮冠状动脉腔内成形术与冠状动脉内溶栓治疗急性心肌梗塞的近期疗效比较

目的：探讨直接经皮冠状动脉腔内成形术（ＰＴＣＡ）与冠状动脉内溶栓（ＩＣＴ）治疗急性心肌梗塞（ＡＭＩ）的近期临床疗效。方法：回顾分析１９９３年８月～１９９６年１２月ＡＭＩ胸痛后４５分钟～６小时〔平均（３．４±１．６）小时〕入院患者５２例临床资料，其中１９９５年８月前２４例行国产尿激酶ＩＣＴ，１９９５年８月后２８例行直接ＰＴＣＡ，以ＡＭＩ溶栓试验（ＴＩＭＩ）３级血流为血管再通标准。结果：ＩＣＴ与直接ＰＴＣＡ２组血管再通率分别为４１．７％和８９．３％（Ｐ＜０．００１），再通血管残留狭窄平均为９０．４％±６．７％和１４．５％±１０．３％（Ｐ＜０．００１），血管再通距胸痛发病时间２组差异无显著性（Ｐ＞０．０５），再通存活患者梗塞后早期（起病后３０日内）心绞痛发生率分别为３０．０％（３／１０）和４．３％（１／２３），Ｐ＜０．０５。结论：在条件和设备允许的医院，可优先考虑直接ＰＴＣＡ治疗ＡＭＩ，以获彻底可靠的血管再通，ＩＣＴ可作为ＰＴＣＡ失败后的补充措施。     

大剂量脉络宁对急性心肌梗塞溶栓治疗再灌注性损伤的防治

目的：探讨急性心肌梗塞（ＡＭＩ）再灌注性损伤的防治方法。方法：选择具有溶栓指征的ＡＭＩ患者１３８例，随机分为治疗组与对照组（各６９例）。２组均进行尿激酶静脉溶栓治疗。治疗组在用尿激酶前１０～３０分钟或同时应用脉络宁４０～５０ｍｌ，每天１次，连用７天。对照组只用尿激酶及常规治疗。结果：治疗组与对照组再通分别为５３例（７６．８％）和４９例（７１．０％）；住院期间死亡分别为２例（２．９％）和６例（８．７％）；发生严重心力衰竭分别为４例（５．８％）和７例（１０．１％）；发生再灌注性心律失常分别为２２例（３１．９％）和３８例（５５．１％），２组比较差异均显著（Ｐ＜０．０５或＜０．０１）。同时，治疗组在减少心肌耗氧量、缩小梗塞面积、减少心肌酶的释放和提高左室射血功能等方面都显著优于对照组（Ｐ均＜０．０５）。结论：大剂量脉络宁具有抗ＡＭＩ再灌注性损伤的作用，并且以连用７天为宜。     

急性心肌梗塞静脉溶栓治疗后冠状动脉再通对左心功能的影响

目的：研究急性心肌梗塞（ＡＭＩ）静脉溶栓治疗后冠状动脉（冠脉）再通对左心功能的影响。方法：以２４例ＡＭＩ患者接受尿激酶（ＵＫ）静脉溶栓治疗为研究对象，再通组１４例，未通组１０例，于发病后３～４周在进行选择性冠脉造影或经皮穿刺冠脉内成形术（ＰＴＣＡ）的同时行Ｘ线左心室造影。结果：再通组射血分数（ＬＶＥＦ）明显高于未通组（Ｐ＜０．０５）；室壁异常活动积分未通组明显高于再通组（Ｐ＜０．０１），其中室壁瘤发生率再通组显著低于未通组，分别为７．１４％与３０．００％（Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论：监测ＬＶＥＦ及室壁局部运动是判断ＡＭＩ时溶栓治疗使梗塞区冠脉再通效果的有效指标；ＡＭＩ后及时有效的静脉溶栓治疗可缩小梗塞面积，改善左心功能，对改善ＡＭＩ患者的近期预后有十分重要的意义。     

重组组织型纤溶酶原激活物与尿激酶静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死疗效比较

目的：观察小剂量（５０ｍｇ）重组组织型纤溶酶原激活物（ｒｔＰＡ）与尿激酶（ＵＫ）静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死的疗效。方法：将患者随机分为ｒｔＰＡ和ＵＫ２组进行对比研究。结果：ｒｔＰＡ组冠状动脉（冠脉）总再通率为７５．０％,ＵＫ组冠脉总再通率为６１．３％。患者在发病＜３小时溶栓治疗,ｒｔＰＡ组冠脉再通率为８６．７％,ＵＫ组冠脉再通率为６６．７％,前者明显高于后者,但统计学处理尚无显著性差异（Ｐ＞０．０５）,原因与例数较少有关;住院并发症和预后２组结果无明显差异,但平均ＣＣＵ时间和平均住院时间前者〔（７．１±１．２）日和（２２．５±６．１）日〕较后者〔（１１．７±３．１）日和（２７．３±７．３）日〕明显减少（Ｐ均＜０．０５）。结论：小剂量（５０ｍｇ）ｒｔＰＡ有良好的溶栓效果,冠脉再通率高,尤其在发病后３小时内进行治疗效果更佳;ｒｔＰＡ溶栓无出血不良反应发生,并能显著缩短患者平均住院时间。     

黄芪生脉散合尿激酶溶栓治疗急性心肌梗塞的疗效观察

目的：探讨黄芪生脉散对急性心肌梗塞（ＡＭＩ）气虚血瘀、气滞血瘀型患者溶栓治疗的临床疗效的影响。方法：采用黄芪生脉散结合尿激酶（ＵＫ）溶栓治疗ＡＭＩ患者２２例（治疗组），并与２０例单用ＵＫ溶栓治疗者作对照（对照组）。结果：治疗组冠脉再通率为７２．７％，对照组冠脉再通率为６５．０％（Ｐ＞０．０５）；治疗组胸痛发生率１３．６％，对照组胸痛发生率５０．０％（Ｐ＜０．０５）。实验室检查示：治疗组治疗后动脉血氧分压（ＰａＯ２）、动脉血氧饱和度（ＳａＯ２）水平均明显升高（Ｐ均＜０．００１）；血浆肾素活性（ＰＲＡ）、血管紧张素Ⅱ（ＡｎｇⅡ）水平均明显降低（Ｐ均＜０．００１）；全血粘度（ηｂ）、血浆粘度（ηｐ）水平均明显降低（Ｐ均＜０．０１）；与对照组比较均有显著性差异（Ｐ均＜０．０５）。结论：黄芪生脉散对气虚血瘀、气滞血瘀型ＡＭＩ患者ＵＫ溶栓治疗疗效有增强作用，并可改善心肌供血，防治胸痛和缓解机体应激状态等。     

~(99)m锝-甲氧基异丁基心肌显像对急性心肌梗死静脉溶栓治疗效果的评价

目的：探讨静脉溶栓治疗对急性心肌梗死（ＡＭＩ）后心肌缺血和室壁运动障碍的影响，及９９ｍ锝甲氧基异丁基（９９ｍＴｃＭＩＢＩ）心肌显像的应用价值。方法：２３例ＡＭＩ患者，其中溶栓再灌注组１２例，无再灌注组１１例。患者在溶栓前及发病后５日～７日行９９ｍＴｃＭＩＢＩ心肌显像，发病３日～７日内行二维超声心动图检查，并随访４个月后的室壁运动状况。结果：２组患者首次心肌显像心肌缺损得分和基础室壁运动得分指数均无显著性差异（Ｐ均＞０．０５）。再灌注组第２次心肌显像心肌缺损得分（５．０±２．６）显著低于第１次得分（１６．３±３．９，Ｐ＜０．０１），缺损得分减少７０．２％±１０．８％；随访期室壁运动得分指数（１．１２±０．１６）显著低于基础指数（１．４７±０．１２，Ｐ＜０．０１）。无再灌注组２次心肌显像心肌缺损得分、随访期和基础室壁运动得分指数均无显著性差异（Ｐ均＞０．０５）。结论：早期静脉溶栓可挽救濒死心肌，缩小梗死面积，改善心功能；９９ｍＴｃＭＩＢＩ心肌灌注断层显像是判断心肌梗死范围、评价溶栓效果的较好手段。     

小剂量重组组织型纤溶酶原激活物与尿激酶治疗急性心肌梗死的对比研究

目的：评价小剂量重组组织型纤溶酶原激活物（ｒｔＰＡ）静脉溶栓治疗国人急性心肌梗死（ＡＭＩ）的疗效及安全性。方法：６６例ＡＭＩ患者随机分为ｒｔＰＡ组３１例及尿激酶（ＵＫ）组３５例,分别应用ｒｔＰＡ及ＵＫ治疗。结果：心肌梗死相关血管再通率ｒｔＰＡ组８０．６％与ＵＫ组４８．６％比较,Ｐ＜０．０５;４周住院病死率ｒｔＰＡ组０与ＵＫ组８．６％比较,Ｐ＜０．０５;而２组间出血发生率无差异。结论：小剂量ｒｔＰＡ治疗ＡＭＩ血管再通率高,出血并发症少,可降低ＡＭＩ早期病死率,是一种安全有效的溶栓剂     

静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死患者对其室壁瘤形成的影响

目的：探讨静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死（ＡＭＩ）患者对其室壁瘤形成的影响。方法：对４８例首次ＡＭＩ患者接受静脉溶栓治疗后３周～４周进行左室造影检查。结果：获得梗死相关冠状动脉（冠脉）再通组与未通组分别为２５例和２３例，冠脉再通组发生室壁瘤３例（发生率为１２．０％），冠脉未通组发生室壁瘤１０例（发生率为４３．５％），２组比较差异显著（Ｐ＜０．０５）。再通组左心功能改善，左室射血分数（０．６１±０．１１）明显优于未通组（０．５１±０．１２），Ｐ＜０．０５。室性心律失常发生率再通组（２８．０％）低于未通组（５６．５％）。结论：ＡＭＩ静脉溶栓治疗后梗死相关冠脉再通可显著降低室壁瘤的发生率，改善患者的心功能和预后。     

急诊溶栓治疗急性心肌梗塞的临床观察

目的：评估急诊溶栓治疗急性心肌梗塞（ＡＭＩ）的效果。方法：根据入院时间将９２例经尿激酶静脉溶栓治疗的ＡＭＩ患者分为急诊组和院内组，并对其疗效和安全性进行总结分析。结果：急诊组溶栓时间比院内组要早（８４±１４）分钟，其中在发病２小时以内接受溶栓者，急诊组约占２６．５％，而院内组无一例；血管再通率２组分别为４２．９％（２１／４９）和３９．５％（１７／４３，Ｐ＞０．０５）；２组再灌注心律失常的发生率分别为４２．９％（９／２１）和２９．４％（５／１７），无一例死亡；急诊组梗塞后心绞痛的发生率较院内组明显减少（Ｐ＜０．０５）；３０天内病死率分别为１０．４％和１１．６％（Ｐ＞０．０５）。结论：急诊溶栓能较大限度地减少治疗耽搁时间，通过加强对再灌注心律失常的处理，证明是安全可行的，且对预后有显著的益处。     

多普勒超声心动图对急性心肌梗塞患者溶栓治疗的评价

目的：探讨多普勒超声心动图对不同梗塞部位急性心肌梗塞（ＡＭＩ）溶栓治疗再通评价的意义。方法：对１６０例首次ＡＭＩ患者随机分成尿激酶溶栓治疗再通组和常规治疗对照组，采用彩色多普勒超声心动图测定左房内径（ＬＡＤ）、室间隔和左室后壁运动最小幅度（ＩＶＳＡ和ＬＶＰＷＡ）、左室射血分数（ＥＦ）、二尖瓣Ｅ点至室间隔距离（ＥＰＳＳ）和二尖瓣血流频谱Ａ峰最大速度与Ｅ峰最大速度比（Ａ／Ｅ）。结果：①溶栓治疗者再通率为５８．８２％（７０／１１９）。②急性前壁心肌梗塞（ＡＡＭＩ）患者的ＬＡＤ、ＥＰＳＳ和Ａ／Ｅ在溶栓组明显低于对照组（Ｐ＜０．０１，Ｐ＜０．０１，Ｐ＜０．０１）；溶栓再通组ＥＦ明显高于对照组（Ｐ＜０．０１）。③急性下壁心肌梗塞（ＡＩＭＩ）患者ＬＶＰＷＡ溶栓再通组高于对照组（Ｐ＜０．０５）；溶栓再通组Ａ／Ｅ明显低于对照组（Ｐ＜０．０１）。④ＡＡＭＩ＋ＡＩＭＩ患者ＥＦ在溶栓再通组明显高于对照组（Ｐ＜０．０１）；ＥＰＳＳ低于对照组（Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论：溶栓治疗可限制梗塞面积，挽救濒死心肌，改善左室功能。在梗塞部位上，前壁优于下壁，ＡＡＭＩ＋ＡＩＭＩ介于两者之间。     

Major bleeding complications in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: the place of thrombolytic therapy in cardiac arrest due to massive pulmonary embolism

OBJECTIVE: Thrombolytic therapy in patients with massive pulmonary embolism (MPE) and prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is subject to debate. This study was performed to determine whether (1) thrombolytic treatment increases the risk of bleeding complications, (2) if the risk of bleeding is influenced by the duration of CPR and if (3) thrombolytic therapy improves outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Emergency department of a tertiary care university hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-six patients with cardiac arrest (CA) due to MPE admitted between July 1993 and December 2001. Thirty-six patients received thrombolysis (TL) and were compared with 30 patients without thrombolytic therapy. Bleeding complications were assessed by clinical evidence or autopsy. RESULTS: Major bleeding complications appear to occur more frequently in patients treated with thrombolytics (9/36 (25%) vs. 3/30 (10%)) even though the difference was statistically not significant (P=0.15). It appears that CPR duration >10 min has no adverse impact on major bleeding complications. No difference in the rate of major bleeding complications between thrombolyzed patients who had a CPR duration of 10 min could be observed (2/8 (25%) vs. 7/28 (25%), P=0.99). In thrombolyzed patients a return of spontaneous circulation could be achieved more frequently (24/36 (67%) vs.13/30 (43%) in controls, P=0.06) and survival after 24 h was higher (19/36 (53%) vs. 7/30 (23%), P=0.01). Survival to discharge was also higher in the TL group (7/36 (19%) vs. 2/30 (7%)), but not statistically significant (P=0.15). CONCLUSION: Although severe bleeding complications tend to occur more frequently in patients undergoing TL, the benefit of this treatment might outweigh the risk of bleeding.     

临床护理路径在急性心肌梗死患者溶栓治疗中的应用

目的了解临床护理路径在急性心肌梗死患者溶栓治疗中的应用效果。方法将2005年1月-2006年12月收治的149例急性心肌梗死患者，采用匹配对照方法分为对照组72例、实验组77例，对照组入院后按常规的急救护理措施，实验组应用临床护理路径对患者进行急救护理，观察两组患者人院至溶栓治疗时间、治疗成功率、出血发生率等指标。结果实验组与对照组患者人院至溶栓治疗时间分别为（23±5．2）min与（66±12．3）min，两组比较，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；实验组与对照组尿激酶溶栓成功率分别为62．3％与44．4％，两组比较，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论临床护理路径在急性心肌梗死患者中的应用可缩短溶栓治疗时间，提高治疗成功率，同时也提高了工作效率及护理质量。     

Effect of Continuous Quality Improvement Methods on Reducing Triage to Thrombolytic Interval for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Objectives: To assess the timeliness of thrombolytic therapy in the ED for selected patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) following continuous quality improvement (CQI) interventions.
Methods: A retrospective, historical comparison study was performed of triage-to-thrombolytic time intervals for AMI patients using chart review for data collection. Patients treated after implementation of the CQI process vs a historical control group were compared. The patients with AMI who had received thrombolytics during the one-year period prior to the CQI interventions and who had documentation of time intervals served as the control group. The patients treated during a four-month period, beginning about one and a half years following introduction of the CQI interventions, served as the intervention group. Interventions included: a triage protocol, CQI review, and staff feedback.
Results: The mean triage-to-thrombolytic interval was longer for the control group (72 ± 25 vs 40.0 ± 22 min; p < 0.0001). The mean triage-to-ECG interval also was longer for the control group (16.5 ± 8.9 vs 8.5 ± 7.5 min; p < 0.0001). Most (79%) of the study group received thrombolytic therapy within 60 minutes, and 39% within 30 minutes, whereas 39% of the control group received thrombolytic therapy within 60 minutes, and 3% within 30 minutes.
Conclusion: The implementation of CQI techniques, including 100% chart review, intensive systems analysis, and staff feedback, had a positive effect on the timeliness of thrombolytic therapy for the ED patients who had AMI. As a result, most (79%) of the patients received therapy within the 60-minute time window recommended currently by the American Heart Association.     

心肌梗死后患者消化道出血临床分析

目的分析急性心肌梗死(AMI)后消化道出血患者的临床特点及预后。方法将419例确诊为AMI的患者分为AMI对照组(404例)和AMI后消化道出血组(15例),分析AMI后消化道出血患者的临床特点及1年心血管病死亡和因再发心绞痛、非致死性AMI、心力衰竭和中风而住院的复合终点结果。结果①AMI后消化道出血组患者有消化道疾病史者的比例高于AMI对照组(13.3%vs.5.2%),但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。②AMI后消化道出血组的估测肾小球滤过率(eGFR)显著低于对照组[(57.1±23.5)m l.m in-1.1.73 m-2vs.(74.6±26.4)m l.m in-1.1.73 m-2,P<0.05],Logostic回归分析显示,eGFR降低对AMI患者发生消化道出血的相对危险为0.975(95%C I为0.957～0.995,P<0.05)。③AMI后消化道出血组阿司匹林使用率低于AMI对照组(66.7%vs.97.5%,P<0.05)。AMI后消化道出血组介入或溶栓治疗的比例低于AMI对照组,但差异无统计学意义(53.3%vs.76.0%,P>0.05)。④AMI后消化道出血组的1年心血管病死亡和因再发心绞痛、非致死性AMI、心力衰竭和中风而住院的复合终点明显高于AMI对照组(40.0%vs.15.3%,P<0.05)。结论 eGFR降低是AMI患者发生消化道出血的重要预测因素。AMI患者发生消化道出血后常使抗血小板和冠脉再通治疗困难,多预后不良。     

Bolus thrombolytic infusion during prolonged refractory cardiac arrest of undiagnosed cause

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and pulmonary embolism (PE) account for about 70% of cardiac arrest. Although thrombolytic therapy is an effective therapy for both AMI and PE, it is not routinely recommended during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for fear of life threatening bleeding complications. Numerous case reports and retrospective studies have suggested a beneficial effect of thrombolytics in cardiac arrest secondary to AMI and PE; however, we present a case of successful use of bolus thrombolytics during CPR in a patient with undifferentiated cardiac arrest (undiagnosed cause) after prolonged conventional resuscitation without success.     

Thrombolysis in cardiopulmonary resuscitation

The prognosis of patients suffering cardiac arrest is still poor. Until today, no drug therapy has shown to improve longterm survival after cardiac arrest. Thrombolysis has been shown to be an effective therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Since 50-70% of cardiac arrests are caused by AMI or massive PE, the combination of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and thrombolytic therapy appears to be sensible. As experimental studies have shown, thrombolytic therapy during CPR may not only be a causal treatment for coronary or pulmonary arterial obstruction by thrombi, but may also improve microcirculatory reperfusion after cardiac arrest. Although numerous small clinical studies have shown the efficacy of thrombolysis during CPR in selected patients, the generalized treatment of patients suffering cardiac arrest with thrombolytics can not be recommended based on current clinical evidence. According to the recent CPR guidelines, thrombolysis may be considered in cardiac arrest patients with suspected massive PE or as a so-called rescue therapy after unsuccessful conventional CPR in patients with a suspected thrombotic cause of cardiac arrest. The risk of severe bleeding complications following thrombolysis during CPR seems to be outweighed by the potential benefit of this therapy in selected patients.     

硫酸镁对尿激酶静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗塞的影响

目的：研究硫酸镁（ＭＳ）对尿激酶（ＵＫ）静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗塞（ＡＭＩ）的影响。方法：１００例ＡＭＩ住院患者随机分为ＭＳ＋ＵＫ组（ＭＵ组，５２例）和ＵＫ组（４８例）。ＭＵ组在静滴ＵＫ前后加用ＭＳ。结果：２组的再灌注率无显著性差异（Ｐ＞０．０５），但ＭＵ组的再灌注心律失常（ＲＡ）发生率、４周病死率显著低于ＵＫ组（Ｐ＜０．０１，Ｐ＜０．０５）；开始治疗后并发的严重心律失常（ＳＡ）、心力衰竭（ＨＦ）及梗塞后心绞痛（ＰＩＡ）的发生率显著低于ＵＫ组（Ｐ均＜０．０５）；休克、再梗塞（ＲＩ）及梗塞延展（ＩＥ）的发生率也均低于ＵＫ组（但Ｐ均＞０．０５）。结论：在ＵＫ静脉溶栓前后加用ＭＳ，可提高ＵＫ溶栓疗效，缩小梗塞面积，减少并发症，并有益于缺血再灌注损伤的防治。     

溶栓治疗75岁以上老年急性心肌梗死患者的疗效观察

目的观察尿激酶静脉溶栓治疗75岁以上老年急性心肌梗死患者的临床疗效。方法75岁以上老年急性心肌梗死患者75例，溶栓组35例，对照组（未溶栓组）40例，溶栓组采用尿激酶及心肌梗死常规治疗方法，对照组除不用尿激酶外其他治疗方法相同。结果溶栓组临床血管再通率62．86％，病死率11．43％，无严重并发症。对照组的临床血管再通率22．5％，病死率27．5％。结论尿激酶静脉溶栓治疗75岁以上老年急性心肌梗死患者可提高再通率降低死亡率，减少并发症，改善预后。     

Retrospective observational case-control study comparing prehospital thrombolytic therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction with in-hospital thrombolytic therapy for patients from same area

Design: Retrospective observational case-control study comparing patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with thrombolytic therapy in the prehospital environment with patients treated in hospital. Setting: Wyre Forest District and Worcestershire Royal Hospital, UK. Participants: (A) All patients who received prehospital thrombolytic therapy for suspected AMI accompanied by electrocardiographic features considered diagnostic. (B) Patients who received thrombolytic therapy after arrival at hospital for the same indication, matched with group A by age, gender and postcode. Main outcome measures: 1. Call to needle time 2. Percentage of patients treated within one hour of calling for medical help 3. Appropriateness of thrombolytic therapy 4. Safety of thrombolytic therapy Results: 1. The median call to needle time for patients treated before arriving in hospital (n = 27) was 40 minutes with an inter-quartile range 25–112 (mean 43 minutes). Patients from the same area who were treated in hospital (n = 27) had a median time of 106 minutes with an inter-quartile range 50–285 (mean 126 minutes). This represents a median time saved by prehospital treatment of 66 minutes. 2. 60 minutes after medical contact, 96 % of patients treated before arrival in hospital had received thrombolytic therapy; this compares with 4% of patients from similar areas treated in hospital. 3. Myocardial infarction was confirmed in 92% (25/27) of patients who received prehospital thrombolytic therapy and similarly 92% (25/27) of those given in-hospital thrombolytic therapy. 4. No major bleeding occurred in either group. Group A suffered fewer in-hospital deaths than group B (1 versus 4). Cardiogenic shock (3 patients) and ventricular arrhythmia (5 patients) were seen only in group B. Conclusion: Paramedic-delivered thrombolytic therapy can be delivered appropriately, safely, and effectively. Time gains are substantial and can meet the national targets for early thrombolytic therapy in the majority of patients.