[Comparative analysis of reperfusion time in primary angioplasty vs thrombolysis. Success vs time].

Archivos del Instituto de Cardiologia de Mexico Pub Date : 1999-09-01

C Martínez Sánchez, C Martínez, A Lasses, E de la Peña, J Ramírez, J Luna, H González, E Chuquiure, U Juárez Herrera, M A Martínez Ríos, S González Romero, E Lupi

{"title":"[Comparative analysis of reperfusion time in primary angioplasty vs thrombolysis. Success vs time].","authors":"C Martínez Sánchez, C Martínez, A Lasses, E de la Peña, J Ramírez, J Luna, H González, E Chuquiure, U Juárez Herrera, M A Martínez Ríos, S González Romero, E Lupi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Unlabelled: We studied 398 patients with diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction who arrived within the first six hours of symptom onset that were treated with thrombolysis or primary angioplasty, they were divided in two groups: Group 1 (n = 198), those treated with 1.5 million U of streptokinase over 60 min and Group 2 (n = 200), those treated with primary angioplasty. In Group 1 the \"pain-door\" time was 3.7 +/- 1.7 hs vs 3.8 +/- 2.4 hs in group 2 (p = NS). The \"door-needle\" time was 48 +/- 12 min. compared with the \"door-balloon\" time of 84 +/- 30 min (p < 0.001). In Group 1, 154 (77.6%) of the patients had clinical of reperfusion after thrombolysis, 58 of them underwent coronary angiography and had an infarct related artery (IRA) patency rate of 45.3%. In Group 2 the IRA patency rate was 85.5% (p < 0.005).Conclusion: Thrombolysis was achieved in a lesser period of time but our findings showed that primary angioplasty was more effective obtaining a TIMI 3 flow.","PeriodicalId":75556,"journal":{"name":"Archivos del Instituto de Cardiologia de Mexico","volume":"69 5","pages":"438-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos del Instituto de Cardiologia de Mexico","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Unlabelled: We studied 398 patients with diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction who arrived within the first six hours of symptom onset that were treated with thrombolysis or primary angioplasty, they were divided in two groups: Group 1 (n = 198), those treated with 1.5 million U of streptokinase over 60 min and Group 2 (n = 200), those treated with primary angioplasty. In Group 1 the "pain-door" time was 3.7 +/- 1.7 hs vs 3.8 +/- 2.4 hs in group 2 (p = NS). The "door-needle" time was 48 +/- 12 min. compared with the "door-balloon" time of 84 +/- 30 min (p < 0.001). In Group 1, 154 (77.6%) of the patients had clinical of reperfusion after thrombolysis, 58 of them underwent coronary angiography and had an infarct related artery (IRA) patency rate of 45.3%. In Group 2 the IRA patency rate was 85.5% (p < 0.005).

Conclusion: Thrombolysis was achieved in a lesser period of time but our findings showed that primary angioplasty was more effective obtaining a TIMI 3 flow.

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

初步血管成形术与溶栓术再灌注时间的比较分析。成功vs时间]。

未标记:我们研究了398例诊断为急性心肌梗死的患者，他们在症状出现的前6小时内到达，接受溶栓或原发性血管成形术治疗，他们分为两组:1组(n = 198)，接受150万U的链激酶治疗超过60分钟，2组(n = 200)，接受原发性血管成形术治疗。组1“痛门”时间为3.7±1.7 hs，组2为3.8±2.4 hs (p = NS)。“门针”时间为48±12 min，“门球囊”时间为84±30 min (p < 0.001)。第1组溶栓后临床再灌注154例(77.6%)，其中冠状动脉造影58例，梗死相关动脉(IRA)通畅率为45.3%。2组IRA通畅率为85.5% (p < 0.005)。结论:溶栓在较短的时间内实现，但我们的研究结果表明，初级血管成形术更有效地获得timi3血流。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助