危险评分对急性心肌梗死急诊介入干预患者远期预后的评价

目的 探讨心肌梗死(MI)溶栓疗法(TIMI)危险评分系统对ST段抬高的急性心肌梗死(STEMI)患者直接经皮冠状动脉介入干预(PCI)远期预后预测的价值。方法 应用TIMI危险评分系统的8个变量,分别累计各例的评分值,观察患者住院期并随访平均(23.9±3.8)个月的主要心血管事件(包括非致命心力衰竭、非致命再次心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建及心脏性死亡),分析入院时TIMI危险评分值对总心血管事件发生率的预测性。结果 373例STEMI患者随访期总心血管事件发生89例(平均发生率23.9％);随危险评分值的逐渐递增,其总心血管事件发生率进行性增高(对增高趋势,X2值统计,P<0.05);评分≥8分者总心血管事件是评分为0者的9倍;与<6分者比较,评分≥6分者心脏性死亡事件明显增高(25％比0,P<0.01),死亡 MI事件也显著增加(36.7％比2.6％,P<0.01)。无论患者入院时肌钙蛋白Ⅰ水平增高与否,其TIMI危险评分越高、则发生心脏不良事件的危险性越大。结论 入院时TIMI危险评分值增高,临床预后越差,TIMI危险评分法可能是对STEMI行直接PCI患者进行床旁定量危险评估与远期预后预测较为方便、实用的临床评价方法。

The predictive value of risk scoring system in myocardial infarction in long-term prognosis of patients referred to direct percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predicting values of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk scoring system for long-term prognosis in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Eight clinical variables and their relative value of score derived from TIMI risk scoring system were used to determine individual's risk score. The patients with STEMI were evaluated during the period of in-hospital and followed-up at a mean of (23.9 +/- 3.8) months for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including nonfatal heart failure, nonfatal re-infarction, target vessel revascularization and cardiac mortality and the predicting value of TIMI risk scores at hospital admission for total MACE were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 373 patients with STEMI referred for primary PCI, 89 patients were presented with MACE during the period of follow-up (average incidence: 23.9%). The presentation of the total MACE increased progressively with the rising TIMI risk scores (P < 0.05 for trends in increase of MACE). The incidence of total MACE in patients with a score > or = 8 was 9 times those with a score 0. The incidence of cardiac mortality was higher (25% vs 0, P < 0.01) and the combined incidence of cardiac mortality and nonfatal re-infarction also increased significantly (36.7% vs 2.6%, P < 0.01) in patients with a score > or = 6 than in those with a score < 6 respectively. The risk of adverse cardiovascular events increased with rising in TIMI risk scores in patients with either high or normal TnI level. CONCLUSIONS: The higher the TIMI risk score at admission, the worse the prognosis. This TIMI risk scoring system is likely to be a simple and practical tool at the bedside in quantitative risk evaluation and long-term prognosis prediction in patients with STEMI referred for primary PCI.