特奈普酶与阿替普酶治疗肺栓塞和疑似肺栓塞的心脏骤停的比较。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-09 DOI:10.1177/08850666241268539
Jessica M Daniell, Jack Mccormick, Iram Nasreen, Todd M Conner, Ginger Rouse, Diana Gritsenko, Akhil Khosla
{"title":"特奈普酶与阿替普酶治疗肺栓塞和疑似肺栓塞的心脏骤停的比较。","authors":"Jessica M Daniell, Jack Mccormick, Iram Nasreen, Todd M Conner, Ginger Rouse, Diana Gritsenko, Akhil Khosla","doi":"10.1177/08850666241268539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>High-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening disease state with current guidelines recommending reperfusion therapy with systemic thrombolytics in addition to anticoagulation. This was a prospective observational cohort study with a historical control group comparing tenecteplase to alteplase for the treatment of PE or cardiac arrest with suspected PE. The primary outcome was the incidence of institutional protocol deviations defined as incorrect thrombolytic dose administered or the incorrect product compounded. Secondary outcomes included any bleeding event, major bleeding event, all-cause mortality, and for patients with a cardiac arrest, successful return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Fifty-four patients were included in the study. Protocol deviations occurred in one patient receiving tenecteplase and one patient receiving alteplase (4.0% vs 3.4%; <i>P</i> = 1.0). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (80% vs 86.2%; <i>P</i> = .72), any bleed (12% vs 13.8%; <i>P</i> = 1.0), major bleed (8.0% vs 6.9%; <i>P</i> = 1.0), or ROSC achievement (22.2% vs 28.6%; <i>P</i> = .73) when comparing tenecteplase to alteplase. Our study demonstrates that tenecteplase may be an alternative thrombolytic to alteplase for treatment of PE or cardiac arrest with suspected PE. Further studies comparing the different systemic thrombolytic agents for PE or cardiac arrest with suspected PE are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":16307,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"200-206"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase for the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism and Cardiac Arrest with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica M Daniell, Jack Mccormick, Iram Nasreen, Todd M Conner, Ginger Rouse, Diana Gritsenko, Akhil Khosla\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08850666241268539\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>High-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening disease state with current guidelines recommending reperfusion therapy with systemic thrombolytics in addition to anticoagulation. This was a prospective observational cohort study with a historical control group comparing tenecteplase to alteplase for the treatment of PE or cardiac arrest with suspected PE. The primary outcome was the incidence of institutional protocol deviations defined as incorrect thrombolytic dose administered or the incorrect product compounded. Secondary outcomes included any bleeding event, major bleeding event, all-cause mortality, and for patients with a cardiac arrest, successful return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Fifty-four patients were included in the study. Protocol deviations occurred in one patient receiving tenecteplase and one patient receiving alteplase (4.0% vs 3.4%; <i>P</i> = 1.0). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (80% vs 86.2%; <i>P</i> = .72), any bleed (12% vs 13.8%; <i>P</i> = 1.0), major bleed (8.0% vs 6.9%; <i>P</i> = 1.0), or ROSC achievement (22.2% vs 28.6%; <i>P</i> = .73) when comparing tenecteplase to alteplase. Our study demonstrates that tenecteplase may be an alternative thrombolytic to alteplase for treatment of PE or cardiac arrest with suspected PE. Further studies comparing the different systemic thrombolytic agents for PE or cardiac arrest with suspected PE are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"200-206\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666241268539\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666241268539","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

高危肺栓塞(PE)是一种危及生命的疾病,现行指南建议在抗凝治疗的基础上使用全身性溶栓药物进行再灌注治疗。这是一项前瞻性观察性队列研究,其历史对照组比较了替奈普酶和阿替普酶治疗肺栓塞或疑似肺栓塞的心脏骤停。主要结果是机构方案偏差的发生率,定义为给药溶栓剂量不正确或复方产品不正确。次要结果包括任何出血事件、大出血事件、全因死亡率,以及心脏骤停患者的自发循环成功恢复(ROSC)。研究共纳入了 54 名患者。一名患者接受了替奈替普酶,一名患者接受了阿替普酶(4.0% vs 3.4%; P = 1.0),出现了方案偏差。在全因死亡率(80% vs 86.2%;P = .72)、任何出血(12% vs 13.8%;P = 1.0)、大出血(8.0% vs 6.9%;P = 1.0)或 ROSC 成功率(22.2% vs 28.6%;P = .73)方面,替奈替普酶与阿替普酶没有差异。我们的研究表明,在治疗疑似 PE 的 PE 或心脏骤停患者时,替奈替普酶可作为阿替普酶的替代溶栓药物。还需要进一步研究比较治疗 PE 或疑似 PE 的心脏骤停的不同全身溶栓药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase for the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism and Cardiac Arrest with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism.

High-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening disease state with current guidelines recommending reperfusion therapy with systemic thrombolytics in addition to anticoagulation. This was a prospective observational cohort study with a historical control group comparing tenecteplase to alteplase for the treatment of PE or cardiac arrest with suspected PE. The primary outcome was the incidence of institutional protocol deviations defined as incorrect thrombolytic dose administered or the incorrect product compounded. Secondary outcomes included any bleeding event, major bleeding event, all-cause mortality, and for patients with a cardiac arrest, successful return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Fifty-four patients were included in the study. Protocol deviations occurred in one patient receiving tenecteplase and one patient receiving alteplase (4.0% vs 3.4%; P = 1.0). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (80% vs 86.2%; P = .72), any bleed (12% vs 13.8%; P = 1.0), major bleed (8.0% vs 6.9%; P = 1.0), or ROSC achievement (22.2% vs 28.6%; P = .73) when comparing tenecteplase to alteplase. Our study demonstrates that tenecteplase may be an alternative thrombolytic to alteplase for treatment of PE or cardiac arrest with suspected PE. Further studies comparing the different systemic thrombolytic agents for PE or cardiac arrest with suspected PE are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JIC) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal offering medical and surgical clinicians in adult and pediatric intensive care state-of-the-art, broad-based analytic reviews and updates, original articles, reports of large clinical series, techniques and procedures, topic-specific electronic resources, book reviews, and editorials on all aspects of intensive/critical/coronary care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信