溶栓治疗ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死的临床疗效观察

目的:观察ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死溶栓治疗的临床效果。方法:选择36例具备溶栓适应证的ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死患者,在一般常规治疗基础上,给予尿激酶150万U,配合肝素静脉滴注,溶栓治疗开始后90分钟监测心电图ST段抬高程度、临床症状演变、心肌酶学峰值和心律的变化,并评估疗效。结果:在一般常规治疗基础上配合尿激酶规范化溶栓治疗,ST段抬高至少降低50%,胸痛症状明显缓解,心肌酶学峰值前移,并出现再灌注心律失常。结论:在具备溶栓适应证前提下,给予尿激酶规范化溶栓治疗ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死,可提高血管再通率,是降低患者死亡率和改善预后的重要方法。     

急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死自发再灌注预测因素分析

目的研究急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction,STEMI)自发再灌注的临床预测指标及其价值。方法入选2009年1月1日至2010年9月30日260例行急诊冠状动脉造影(coronary angiography,CAG)的初发STEMI患者。所有患者按照溶栓试验血流分级(thrombolysis in myocardial infarction,TIMI)分为自发再灌注(spontaneous reperfusion,SR)组(TIMI 3级)和无自发再灌注(nonspontaneous reperfusion,NSR)组(TIMI 0~2级)。比较2组的各项指标,使用Logistic多因素回归分析评价SR的影响因素。结果 2组患者术前ST段回落>50%、术前胸痛缓解>5、血红蛋白、肌酐、尿酸、超敏C反应蛋白和肌酸激酶同工酶比较,差异有统计学意义;Logistic多因素回归分析显示:血红蛋白(OR=1.064,95%CI:1.036~1.094,P=0.000)、超敏C反应蛋白(OR=0.811,95%CI:0.713~0.923,P=0.001)和术前ST段回落>50%(OR=3.638,95%CI:1.793~7.318,P=0.000)是自发再灌注的影响因素;3者联合对自发再灌注诊断的敏感度为80.6%,特异度为63.7%,受试者工作特征曲线(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)分析示曲线下面积(area under curve,AUC)为0.78,其95%CI为0.72~0.85。结论血红蛋白、超敏C反应蛋白和术前ST段回落>50%对于SR可能有一定的预测价值。     

ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者梗死相关动脉自发再通的相关因素

目的：观察急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死（STEMI）梗死相关动脉（IRA）自发再通（SR）患者的凝血功能指标,对其是否与SR相关进行分析。方法：连续入选STEMI且符合入选条件者共153例,根据急诊冠状动脉造影术中IRA血流分级,将其分为SR组51例,未自发再通（NSR）组102例。于患者入院时抽取静脉血,检测血小板功能参数、凝血常规、D-二聚体、肝肾功能等指标,分析两组患者的一般临床资料、检验指标、冠脉造影等资料特点。结果：两组在冠心病危险因素、肝肾功能、血小板功能参数、D-二聚体等方面差异无统计学意义（P〈0．05）。SR组梗死前心绞痛检出率显著高于NSR组（45．10％ vs 526．47％,P〈0．05）,部分凝血活酶时间（P1阿）高于NSR组[（24．26±3．55）s vs（22．93±3．49）s;P〈0．051。Pearson相关分析结果提示,梗死前心绞痛、PTT与IRA的SR有较强相关。结论：梗死前心绞痛、PTT水平的延长可以作为冠脉自发再通的预测指标。     

胸痛中心模式对急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死再灌注治疗和临床预后的影响

目的 探讨胸痛中心模式对急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)再灌注治疗及预后的影响。方法 选取2017年9月至2018年8月长治医学院附属和平医院胸痛中心成立后收治的STEMI 200例为研究组,2016年9月至2017年8月胸痛中心成立前收治的STEMI153例为对照组,分别收集两组发病至首次医疗处理时间、首份心电图完成时间、就诊至再灌注时间(球囊扩张或溶栓),住院期间NT-proBNP、左心室射血分数(LVEF)、左室舒张末内径(LVDD)、左室收缩末内径(LVSD)、Killip分级及心力衰竭、恶性心律失常、房颤、室壁瘤及院内死亡发生率,平均住院天数及费用,出院1年后死亡、再入院、心衰及再发心绞痛发生率。结果 研究组中首次医疗处理时间、首份心电图完成时间、就诊至再灌注时间、住院期间NT-proBNP及心力衰竭、恶性心律失常、房颤发生率均低于对照组(P0.05),同时研究组LVEF高于对照组(P0.05);另外与对照组相比,研究组住院天数也缩短(P0.05);在出院后1年随访中STEMI患者死亡、再入院、心衰及再发心绞痛发生率研究组均低于对照组(P0.05)。结论胸痛中心运行模式进一步提高了STEMI再灌注治疗的水平,缩短心肌总缺血时间,改善了患者的心功能以及降低了STEMI终点时间的发生率。     

Glucose-insulin-potassium therapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Context  The clinical benefit of glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) infusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unclear. While some smaller trials suggest benefit, in the CREATE-ECLA trial, GIK infusion had no effect on 30-day mortality in 20 201 patients. Objectives  To determine the association between GIK infusion therapy and 30-day and 6-month outcomes in patients with STEMI. Design, Setting, and Participants  Primary analysis of the OASIS-6 GIK randomized controlled trial of 2748 patients with acute STEMI; prespecified analyses of the combined trial data from the OASIS-6 GIK and CREATE-ECLA GIK trial populations of 22 943 patients with acute STEMI; subgroup analysis on the timing of initiation of GIK infusion therapy and outcomes; and post hoc analyses exploring whether GIK infusion may cause early harm by increasing glucose and potassium levels and net fluid gain. Intervention  High-dose GIK solution consisting of 25% glucose, 50 U/L of regular insulin, and 80 mEq/L of potassium infused at 1.5 mL/kg per hour for 24 hours. Main Outcome Measures  Mortality rates at 30 days and 6 months in the OASIS-6 GIK trial and rates of death, heart failure, and the composite of death or heart failure at 3 and 30 days in the combined OASIS-6 GIK and CREATE-ECLA GIK trial populations. Results  At 6 months, 148 (10.8%) GIK infusion patients and 143 (10.4%) control patients died in the OASIS-6 trial (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83-1.31; P = .72); 153 (11.1%) GIK patients and 185 (13.5%) control patients had heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P = .08); and 240 (17.5%) GIK patients and 264 (19.2%) control patients had a composite of death or heart failure (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.08; P = .27). In the prespecified analyses of the combined trial data, there were 712 deaths (6.2%) in the GIK group and 632 deaths (5.5%) in the control group at 3 days (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.26; P = .03). This difference disappeared by 30 days, with 1108 deaths (9.7%) in the GIK group and 1068 (9.3%) in the control group (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13; P = .33). GIK therapy increased levels of glucose, potassium, and net fluid gain postinfusion, all 3 of which predicted death after adjusting for multiple confounders. Adjusting for glucose, potassium, and net fluid gain eliminated the apparent increase in mortality at 3 days observed with GIK infusion, suggesting a direct association with these factors. Administration of GIK infusion within 4 hours of symptom onset yielded no benefit compared with later initiation. Conclusions  Infusion of GIK provided no benefit and may cause early harm following STEMI. Avoidance of infusion-related hyperglycemia, hyperkalemia, and net fluid gain may be advisable in future studies of metabolic modulation in patients with STEMI. Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00064428      

Distal microcirculatory protection during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial

Context  Atheromatous and thrombotic embolization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute myocardial infarction is common and may result in microcirculatory dysfunction, the prevention of which may improve reperfusion success, reduce infarct size, and enhance event-free survival. Objective  To determine whether protection of the distal microcirculation from thromboembolic debris liberated during primary PCI results in improved reperfusion and decreased infarct size. Design, Setting, and Patients  Prospective randomized controlled trial at 38 academic and community-based institutions in 7 countries enrolling 501 patients aged 18 years or older with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presenting within 6 hours of symptom onset and undergoing primary PCI or rescue intervention after failed thrombolysis. Interventions  Patients were randomized between May 20, 2002, and November 21, 2003, to receive PCI with a balloon occlusion and aspiration distal microcirculatory protection system vs angioplasty without distal protection. Main Outcome Measures  Coprimary end points were ST-segment resolution (STR) measured 30 minutes after PCI by continuous Holter monitoring and infarct size measured by technetium Tc 99m sestamibi imaging between days 5 and 14. Secondary end points included major adverse cardiac events. Results  Among 252 patients assigned to distal protection, aspiration was performed in 97% (242/251), all angioplasty balloon inflations were fully protected in 79% (193/245), and visible debris was retrieved from 73% (182/250). Complete STR was achieved in a similar proportion reperfused with vs without distal protection (63.3% [152/240] vs 61.9% [148/239], respectively; absolute difference, 1.4% [95% confidence interval, –7.7% to 10.5%; P = .78]), and left ventricular infarct size was similar in both groups (median, 12.0% [n = 229] vs 9.5% [n = 208], respectively; P = .15). Major adverse cardiac events at 6 months occurred with similar frequency in the distal protection and control groups (10.0% vs 11.0%, respectively; P = .66). Conclusions  A distal balloon occlusion and aspiration system effectively retrieves embolic debris in most patients with acute STEMI undergoing emergent PCI. Nonetheless, distal embolic protection did not result in improved microvascular flow, greater reperfusion success, reduced infarct size, or enhanced event-free survival.      

再灌注治疗的 ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)

ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)是一个主要的健康问题,甚至在目前急性心肌梗死的诊断和管理不断改善中也如此.STEMI在大约33%的患者中发生致命事件.STEMI是唯一的第二位最严重的急性冠脉综合征(ACS)的后心源性猝死的形式.约29%心肌梗死的患者 经历过STEMI(1),而47%的急性冠脉综合征(ACS)患者,表现出STEMI(2)症状.STEM是冠心病三要素之一,其他两个分别是不稳定型心绞痛和非ST段抬高心肌梗死(NSTEMI),三者构成已知冠心病要素.急性冠脉综合征的特点是急性缺血性胸痛(休息痛或劳累痛)与缺血性心电图变化(ST段抬高或压低或T反转)联系在一起.有无ST段抬高是STEMI区别于急性冠心病其他形式的特征.NSTEMI和不稳定型心绞痛以有无心肌损伤标记物的上升加以区别[3-6].纤溶和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),最终在STEMI再灌注治疗.这些疗法已上一线,改善梗死动脉通畅性,减少梗死面积,降低死亡率.时间敏感性STEMI要求一个或这两个疗法的快速实施[4-7].调查表明,许多西方国家STEMI病人很难接触再灌注治疗法,而选择了临床使用成熟的药物疗法,至今仍是未处理疗法.高达三分之一的STEMI患者在症状出现12小时内仍没有接受再紧急灌注治疗,尽管保健在改善[7-8],但最近的一项研究显示,80.9%,在北京的STEMI患者接受再灌注治疗(81%为初始PCI;19%,溶栓).同时,研究表明初始PCI是北京病人的主要再灌注疗法[9].本文旨在给出两个明确的STEMI再灌注疗法的重要细节.     

急性非ST段抬高型与ST段抬高型心肌梗死冠脉病变特征比较

目的比较非ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死（NSTEAMI）与ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死（STEAMI）冠状动脉病变的特点。方法回顾NSTEAMI与STEAMI患者的临床及冠状动脉造影资料,分析二者的临床特点及冠状动脉病变血管的支数、狭窄程度及侧支循环情况。结果 NSTEAMI组的多支病变率为63.34%,其中大于75%的严重狭窄率为78.33%,侧支循环率为30.00%,三者均高于STEAMI组,而完全闭塞率为8.33%,低于STEAMI组。两组间高血压、糖尿病患病率差异无统计学意义。在病变血管的构成上组间无差异。结论 NSTEAMI的冠状动脉病变程度高于STEAMI,完全闭塞率低于后者,二者具有不同的冠状动脉病变特点。     

替格瑞洛对急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死再灌注后冠状动脉血流的影响

目的 探讨急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction,ASTEMI)患者术前服用负荷量替格瑞洛对急诊经皮冠状动脉介入(percutaneous coronary interventions,PCI)术中冠状动脉血流及预后的影响.方法 将127例ASTEMI并行急诊PCI患者分为替格瑞洛组(n=62)及氯吡格雷组(n=65),术前分别给予替格瑞洛180 mg、氯吡格雷600 mg,比较两组基本情况、术后冠脉血流及术后6个月主要心血管不良事件,包括急性及亚急性支架内血栓、再发心绞痛及心肌梗死、“罪犯”血管再次血运重建、再次住院和死亡等.结果 氯吡格雷组与替格瑞洛组基本临床资料、冠脉造影情况、术后心肌酶峰值及左室射血分数差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05);氯吡格雷组与替格瑞洛组术后梗死相关血管无复流发生率(分别为15.2％、3.2％)、校正TIMI血流帧数计数[分别为(28.4±13.6)、(23.2±7.4)帧]、术后心肌酶达峰时间[分别为(19.0±8.3)、(16.0 ±5.9)h]、2h心电图ST段回落指数≥50％比例(分别为76.9％、91.9％)差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);替格瑞洛组6个月随访复合终点事件发生率较氯吡格雷组明显降低(P＜0.05).结论 急诊PCI前负荷量替格瑞洛可明显改善梗死相关血管冠脉血流、心肌灌注及临床预后.     

对应导联ST段压低在急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者中的临床价值

目的探讨对应导联ST段压低(reciprocal ST-segment depression,RSTD)在急性ST段抬高心肌梗死(acute ST-elevationmyocardial infarction,STEMI)患者中的临床重要性。方法选取2011年1月至2012年1月共318例STEMI并接受经皮冠状动脉造影(coronary artery angiography,CAG)的患者。根据入院时第1份心电图(electrocardiogram,ECG)是否出现RSTD,将患者分为RSTD组和非RSTD组,评价2组患者基线情况和CAG等结果。结果急性下壁心肌梗死在RSTD组中更常见。RSTD组较非RSTD组患者的收缩压(systolic blood pressure,SBP)和左室射血分数(left ventricular ejection fraction,LVEF)更低、Killip分级更高、肌酸激酶同工酶(creatinekinase-MB,CK-MB)和肌钙蛋白I(troponin I,TnI)的峰值更高、ST段抬高程度更高、合并心房纤颤、传导阻滞和心源性休克的概率更大、多支病变更常见、主动脉内球囊反搏术(intra-aortic balloon pump,IABP)的使用率更高、而且院内病死率更高(P<0.05)。结论伴RSTD的STEMI患者存在不稳定的血流动力学状态,且预后不佳。ECG可以较好地区分高危患者,从而指导治疗方案。     

Double coronary artery thrombosis presenting as acute extensive anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Simultaneous thrombosis of more than one coronary artery is an uncommon angiographic finding in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and usually leads to cardiogenic shock or even sudden cardiac death. We reported a 56-year-old man presenting with persistent chest tightness and ST-segment elevation over precordial leads in electrocardiography (ECG). Emergent coronary angiogram showed total occlusion of both the proximal right coronary artery (RCA) and the proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD). We performed thrombus aspiration and stenting over the LAD with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) III flow to the distal LAD. However, diminishing collateral flow to the distal RCA complicated with complete atrioventricular block (CAVB) and cardiogenic shock developed thereafter. Because distal embolization of the collateral circulation from the LAD to the distal RCA was suspected, thrombus aspiration and stenting over the proximal RCA were performed. After reperfusion of the RCA, the patient's hemodynamic status stabilized and he recovered uneventfully.     

ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死溶栓治疗后不同抗凝治疗的临床观察

目的观察比较ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死溶栓治疗后普通肝素(UFH)和parnaparin(商品名新复先) 两种不同抗凝辅助治疗方法的疗效和安全性。方法186名入院后接受溶栓治疗的ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死患者随机分为2组,UFH组及parnaparin组。UFH组在溶栓治疗后12 h给予肝素100 U/kg·b.w.静脉推注,续1 000 U/h静脉滴注,维持活化的部分凝血活酶时间为正常对照的1.5~2.0倍,连续3 d后改为皮下注射7 500 U每12 h 1次,连续注射4 d。parna-parin组在溶栓治疗后12 h给予parnaparin 0.4 ml皮下注射,每12 h 1次,连续注射7 d。主要观察终点:治疗2、7、14、30 d内发生心脏性或非心脏性死亡、再梗死、药物治疗疗效差而必须行急诊血运重建的三联终点事件(死亡、心肌再梗死、紧急血运重建术)。所有入选患者住院14 d以上,随访至治疗后45 d。结果随访45 d内复合三联终点事件在par-naparin组明显下降(42.22% vs37.08%,P=0.03),出血事件(10.00% vs3.13%,P=0.06)及血小板减少(3.33% vs0,P=0.07)亦少于UFH组。结论做为ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死溶栓治疗后的辅助抗凝治疗,parnaparin较UFH至少在45 d内更能减少心脏事件的再发生,更少发生出血事件和血小板减少。     

Mortality benefit of immediate revascularization of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with contraindications to thrombolytic therapy: a propensity analysis

Context  There are no definitive recommendations for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with ST-segment elevation who have contraindications to thrombolytic therapy. It is not clear whether, and the extent to which, immediate mechanical reperfusion (IMR) reduces in-hospital mortality in this population. Objective  To determine whether IMR (defined as percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery) is associated with a mortality benefit in patients with acute ST-segment elevation AMI who are eligible for IMR but have contraindications to thrombolytic therapy. Design, Setting, and Patients  From June 1994 to January 2003, the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2, 3, and 4 enrolled 1 799 704 patients with AMI. A total of 19 917 patients with acute ST-segment elevation were eligible for IMR but had thrombolytic contraindications after excluding patients who were transferred in from or out to other facilities, patients who received intracoronary thrombolytics, and those who received no medications within 24 hours of arrival. Main Outcome Measure  In-hospital mortality. Results  Of the 19 917 patients, 4705 patients (23.6%) received IMR and 5173 patients (25.9%) died. In-hospital mortality rates in the IMR and non-IMR treated groups in the unadjusted analysis were 11.1%, representing 521 of 4705 patients, and 30.6%, representing 4652 of 15 212 patients, respectively, for a risk reduction of 63.7% (odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.31). In a further analysis using a propensity matching score to reduce the effects of bias, 3905 patients who received IMR remained at lower risk for in-hospital mortality than 3905 matched patients (10.9% vs 20.1%, respectively, for a risk reduction of 45.8%; OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). Following a second logistic model applied to the matched groups to adjust for residual differences, a significant treatment effect persisted (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75). Conclusions  In this population, IMR was associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality after appropriate adjustments. Of those we studied who were eligible for IMR, 15 212 patients (76.4%) did not receive it. These results suggest that using IMR in patients with acute ST-segment elevation AMI and contraindications to thrombolytics should be strongly considered.