初步经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与现场纤溶治疗对st段抬高型心肌梗死患者的疗效比较:一项准实验研究

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Shuduo Zhou, Siwei Xie, Binquan You, Dingcheng Xiang, Weiyi Fang, Michael G Trisolini, Kenneth A Labresh, Sidney C Smith, Zhi-Jie Zheng, Yinzi Jin, Feng Liu, Yong Huo
{"title":"初步经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与现场纤溶治疗对st段抬高型心肌梗死患者的疗效比较:一项准实验研究","authors":"Shuduo Zhou, Siwei Xie, Binquan You, Dingcheng Xiang, Weiyi Fang, Michael G Trisolini, Kenneth A Labresh, Sidney C Smith, Zhi-Jie Zheng, Yinzi Jin, Feng Liu, Yong Huo","doi":"10.1161/JAHA.125.041995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy compared with onsite fibrinolytic therapy (O-FT) for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction when delivered promptly. However, the contemporaneous data to inform the comparative benefits of primary PCI versus O-FT, especially in developing countries, have been largely understudied.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the National Chest Pain Center Program (NCPCP), the largest nationwide registry in China, including patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary PCI or O-FT from January 2016 to December 2022. Patients were matched using propensity scores, and the PCI-related delay was defined as the difference between the observed door-to-wiring time and the door-to-needle time. Mortality outcomes were assessed at different delay intervals (<60 minutes, 60-90 minutes, >90 minutes). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on age, infarction location, and Killip classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 19 334 matched patients, primary PCI demonstrated a significant mortality benefit over O-FT when PCI-related delays were <60 minutes (2.34% versus 6.01%). However, this advantage diminished when delays exceeded 90 minutes. The critical threshold at which PCI lost its mortality benefit was identified as 119.51 minutes (door-to-wiring time - door-to-needle time). Subgroup analyses showed that older patients, patients with anterior infarction, and those with a higher Killip class appeared to have lower equipoise thresholds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Primary PCI offers a mortality benefit compared with O-FT in patients with timely treated ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, but treatment delays can mitigate this benefit. In settings with prolonged treatment delays, immediate fibrinolysis may be a more effective strategy. Treatment decisions should incorporate both patient characteristics and health care system constraints to optimize ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":54370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":" ","pages":"e041995"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Benefits of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Onsite Fibrinolytic for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Quasi-Experimental Study.\",\"authors\":\"Shuduo Zhou, Siwei Xie, Binquan You, Dingcheng Xiang, Weiyi Fang, Michael G Trisolini, Kenneth A Labresh, Sidney C Smith, Zhi-Jie Zheng, Yinzi Jin, Feng Liu, Yong Huo\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/JAHA.125.041995\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy compared with onsite fibrinolytic therapy (O-FT) for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction when delivered promptly. However, the contemporaneous data to inform the comparative benefits of primary PCI versus O-FT, especially in developing countries, have been largely understudied.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the National Chest Pain Center Program (NCPCP), the largest nationwide registry in China, including patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary PCI or O-FT from January 2016 to December 2022. Patients were matched using propensity scores, and the PCI-related delay was defined as the difference between the observed door-to-wiring time and the door-to-needle time. Mortality outcomes were assessed at different delay intervals (<60 minutes, 60-90 minutes, >90 minutes). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on age, infarction location, and Killip classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 19 334 matched patients, primary PCI demonstrated a significant mortality benefit over O-FT when PCI-related delays were <60 minutes (2.34% versus 6.01%). However, this advantage diminished when delays exceeded 90 minutes. The critical threshold at which PCI lost its mortality benefit was identified as 119.51 minutes (door-to-wiring time - door-to-needle time). Subgroup analyses showed that older patients, patients with anterior infarction, and those with a higher Killip class appeared to have lower equipoise thresholds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Primary PCI offers a mortality benefit compared with O-FT in patients with timely treated ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, but treatment delays can mitigate this benefit. In settings with prolonged treatment delays, immediate fibrinolysis may be a more effective strategy. Treatment decisions should incorporate both patient characteristics and health care system constraints to optimize ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e041995\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.125.041995\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.125.041995","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与现场纤溶治疗(O-FT)相比,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)是及时治疗st段抬高型心肌梗死的首选再灌注策略。然而,关于初级PCI与O-FT的比较效益的同期数据,特别是在发展中国家,在很大程度上还没有得到充分的研究。方法:我们使用了来自中国最大的全国性胸痛中心项目(NCPCP)的数据,包括2016年1月至2022年12月期间接受初级PCI或O-FT治疗的st段抬高型心肌梗死患者。使用倾向评分对患者进行匹配,pci相关延迟定义为观察到的门到接线时间和门到针头时间之间的差异。在不同的延迟间隔(90分钟)评估死亡率结果。根据年龄、梗死部位和Killip分类进行亚组分析。结果:在19334例匹配的患者中,当PCI相关延迟时,初级PCI比O-FT显示出显著的死亡率降低。结论:与O-FT相比,及时治疗st段抬高型心肌梗死患者的初级PCI死亡率降低,但治疗延迟会降低这种获益。在长期治疗延误的情况下,立即纤溶可能是更有效的策略。治疗决策应结合患者特点和卫生保健系统的限制,以优化st段抬高型心肌梗死的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Benefits of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Onsite Fibrinolytic for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy compared with onsite fibrinolytic therapy (O-FT) for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction when delivered promptly. However, the contemporaneous data to inform the comparative benefits of primary PCI versus O-FT, especially in developing countries, have been largely understudied.

Methods: We used data from the National Chest Pain Center Program (NCPCP), the largest nationwide registry in China, including patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary PCI or O-FT from January 2016 to December 2022. Patients were matched using propensity scores, and the PCI-related delay was defined as the difference between the observed door-to-wiring time and the door-to-needle time. Mortality outcomes were assessed at different delay intervals (<60 minutes, 60-90 minutes, >90 minutes). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on age, infarction location, and Killip classification.

Results: In 19 334 matched patients, primary PCI demonstrated a significant mortality benefit over O-FT when PCI-related delays were <60 minutes (2.34% versus 6.01%). However, this advantage diminished when delays exceeded 90 minutes. The critical threshold at which PCI lost its mortality benefit was identified as 119.51 minutes (door-to-wiring time - door-to-needle time). Subgroup analyses showed that older patients, patients with anterior infarction, and those with a higher Killip class appeared to have lower equipoise thresholds.

Conclusions: Primary PCI offers a mortality benefit compared with O-FT in patients with timely treated ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, but treatment delays can mitigate this benefit. In settings with prolonged treatment delays, immediate fibrinolysis may be a more effective strategy. Treatment decisions should incorporate both patient characteristics and health care system constraints to optimize ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction outcomes.

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 the American Heart Association
Journal of the American Heart Association CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
1749
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: As an Open Access journal, JAHA - Journal of the American Heart Association is rapidly and freely available, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice. JAHA is an authoritative, peer-reviewed Open Access journal focusing on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. JAHA provides a global forum for basic and clinical research and timely reviews on cardiovascular disease and stroke. As an Open Access journal, its content is free on publication to read, download, and share, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信