阿根廷药物侵入策略的使用。注册表分析

Q4 Medicine
Mauro Rossi Prat, J. Gagliardi, M. L. Estrella, Gerarda Zapata, Mauro A. Quiroga, Adrián Charask, A. Meiriño, Yanina Castillo Costa, Walter Quiroga, Heraldo D´Imperio
{"title":"阿根廷药物侵入策略的使用。注册表分析","authors":"Mauro Rossi Prat, J. Gagliardi, M. L. Estrella, Gerarda Zapata, Mauro A. Quiroga, Adrián Charask, A. Meiriño, Yanina Castillo Costa, Walter Quiroga, Heraldo D´Imperio","doi":"10.7775/rac.v91.i3.20632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In Argentina, a country with a large area and suboptimal reperfusion times, the pharmacoinvasive (PI) strategy might be considered. Methods: ARGEN-IAM-ST is a national prospective, multicenter, and observational registry that includes STEMI patients with less than 36 hours of progression. The PI strategy usage and its associated variables were defined. Results: In this registry, 4788 patients were analyzed, of which 88.56% underwent PPCI, 8.46% received thrombolytics with positive reperfusion (TL+), and only 2.98% received PI strategy. Median and interquartile range (IQR) of total ischemia time were lower in patients receiving TL+ (165 min, IQR 100-269) and PI (191 min, IQR 100-330) than in patients undergoing PPCI (280 min, IQR 179-520), p <0.001. No differences in intra-hospital mortality were observed: 4.9% in the PI strategy group, 5.2% in the TL+ group and 7.8% in the PPCI group (p = 0.081). No differences in major bleeding events were observed. It was observed that 57% of the TL+ patients met the criteria for high cardiovascular risk, but they did not receive PI strategy, as recommended. Conclusions: Only 3 out of 100 reperfused STEMI patients received PI strategy. Its administration is not systematically associated to high cardiovascular risk. Despite the under-usage, it remains an option to be considered due to its total ischemia time lower than in the PPCI, with no increase in clinically significant bleedings.","PeriodicalId":34966,"journal":{"name":"Revista Argentina de Cardiologia","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of the Pharmacoinvasive Strategy in Argentina. ARGEN-IAM ST Registry Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Mauro Rossi Prat, J. Gagliardi, M. L. Estrella, Gerarda Zapata, Mauro A. Quiroga, Adrián Charask, A. Meiriño, Yanina Castillo Costa, Walter Quiroga, Heraldo D´Imperio\",\"doi\":\"10.7775/rac.v91.i3.20632\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In Argentina, a country with a large area and suboptimal reperfusion times, the pharmacoinvasive (PI) strategy might be considered. Methods: ARGEN-IAM-ST is a national prospective, multicenter, and observational registry that includes STEMI patients with less than 36 hours of progression. The PI strategy usage and its associated variables were defined. Results: In this registry, 4788 patients were analyzed, of which 88.56% underwent PPCI, 8.46% received thrombolytics with positive reperfusion (TL+), and only 2.98% received PI strategy. Median and interquartile range (IQR) of total ischemia time were lower in patients receiving TL+ (165 min, IQR 100-269) and PI (191 min, IQR 100-330) than in patients undergoing PPCI (280 min, IQR 179-520), p <0.001. No differences in intra-hospital mortality were observed: 4.9% in the PI strategy group, 5.2% in the TL+ group and 7.8% in the PPCI group (p = 0.081). No differences in major bleeding events were observed. It was observed that 57% of the TL+ patients met the criteria for high cardiovascular risk, but they did not receive PI strategy, as recommended. Conclusions: Only 3 out of 100 reperfused STEMI patients received PI strategy. Its administration is not systematically associated to high cardiovascular risk. Despite the under-usage, it remains an option to be considered due to its total ischemia time lower than in the PPCI, with no increase in clinically significant bleedings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Argentina de Cardiologia\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Argentina de Cardiologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7775/rac.v91.i3.20632\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Argentina de Cardiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7775/rac.v91.i3.20632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:原发性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)是急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)的首选治疗方法。阿根廷是一个面积大、再灌注时间不理想的国家,可考虑采用药物侵入(PI)策略。方法:argon - iam - st是一项全国前瞻性、多中心、观察性注册研究,纳入进展时间小于36小时的STEMI患者。定义了PI策略的使用及其相关变量。结果:在该注册表中,分析了4788例患者,其中88.56%的患者接受了PPCI, 8.46%的患者接受了再灌注阳性溶栓治疗(TL+),只有2.98%的患者接受了PI策略。TL+组总缺血时间中位数和四分位数范围(IQR) (165 min, IQR 100 ~ 269)和PI组(191 min, IQR 100 ~ 330)均低于PPCI组(280 min, IQR 179 ~ 520), p <0.001。院内死亡率无差异:PI策略组为4.9%,TL+组为5.2%,PPCI组为7.8% (p = 0.081)。在大出血事件方面没有观察到差异。观察到57%的TL+患者符合心血管高危标准,但他们没有接受推荐的PI策略。结论:100例STEMI再灌注患者中只有3例采用PI策略。它的使用与高心血管风险没有系统性联系。尽管使用不足,但它仍然是一个值得考虑的选择,因为它的总缺血时间比PPCI短,没有增加临床显著出血。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Use of the Pharmacoinvasive Strategy in Argentina. ARGEN-IAM ST Registry Analysis
Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In Argentina, a country with a large area and suboptimal reperfusion times, the pharmacoinvasive (PI) strategy might be considered. Methods: ARGEN-IAM-ST is a national prospective, multicenter, and observational registry that includes STEMI patients with less than 36 hours of progression. The PI strategy usage and its associated variables were defined. Results: In this registry, 4788 patients were analyzed, of which 88.56% underwent PPCI, 8.46% received thrombolytics with positive reperfusion (TL+), and only 2.98% received PI strategy. Median and interquartile range (IQR) of total ischemia time were lower in patients receiving TL+ (165 min, IQR 100-269) and PI (191 min, IQR 100-330) than in patients undergoing PPCI (280 min, IQR 179-520), p <0.001. No differences in intra-hospital mortality were observed: 4.9% in the PI strategy group, 5.2% in the TL+ group and 7.8% in the PPCI group (p = 0.081). No differences in major bleeding events were observed. It was observed that 57% of the TL+ patients met the criteria for high cardiovascular risk, but they did not receive PI strategy, as recommended. Conclusions: Only 3 out of 100 reperfused STEMI patients received PI strategy. Its administration is not systematically associated to high cardiovascular risk. Despite the under-usage, it remains an option to be considered due to its total ischemia time lower than in the PPCI, with no increase in clinically significant bleedings.
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
Revista Argentina de Cardiologia
Revista Argentina de Cardiologia Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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