女性药物侵入后经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的预测因素

José Marconi Almeida Sousa , Adriano Henrique Pereira Barbosa , Adriano Caixeta , Pedro Ivo de Marqui Moraes , Daniel Garoni Peternelli , Guilherme Melo Ferreira , Eryca Vanessa , Helena Nogueira Soufen , Iran Gonçalves , Silvio Reggi , Antônio Célio Camargo Moreno , Antônio Carlos Camargo Carvalho , Claudia M. Rodrigues Alves
{"title":"女性药物侵入后经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的预测因素","authors":"José Marconi Almeida Sousa ,&nbsp;Adriano Henrique Pereira Barbosa ,&nbsp;Adriano Caixeta ,&nbsp;Pedro Ivo de Marqui Moraes ,&nbsp;Daniel Garoni Peternelli ,&nbsp;Guilherme Melo Ferreira ,&nbsp;Eryca Vanessa ,&nbsp;Helena Nogueira Soufen ,&nbsp;Iran Gonçalves ,&nbsp;Silvio Reggi ,&nbsp;Antônio Célio Camargo Moreno ,&nbsp;Antônio Carlos Camargo Carvalho ,&nbsp;Claudia M. Rodrigues Alves","doi":"10.1016/j.rbciev.2015.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Pharmacoinvasive therapy (PIT) is feasible in patients with acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation (STEMI) when timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unavailable. In this study, we compared women who underwent successful reperfusion PIT with those who required rescue PCI, to identify potential predictors of thrombolytic failure.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>From January 2010 to November 2014, 327 consecutive women with STEMI were referred to a tertiary hospital, 206 after successful thrombolysis (63%) and 121 who required rescue PCI. The groups were compared regarding demographic, clinical and angiographic outcomes, and clinical (TIMI, GRACE, and ZWOLLE CADILLAC) and bleeding (CRUSADE) risk scores. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of thrombolytic failure.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was no significant difference between the demographic characteristics or the medical history of the groups. Rescue PCI group had significantly higher values of the evaluated scores. Clinical hospital complications and mortality (2.5% vs. 22.0%; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001) were more frequent in rescue PCI group. The independent variables associated with rescue PCI were pain-to-needle time &gt; 3<!--> <!-->h (OR: 3.07, 95%CI: 1.64 to 5.75; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001), ZWOLLE score (OR: 1.25; 95%CI: 1.14 to 1.37; <em>p</em> = 0.0001) and creatinine clearance (OR: 1.009, 95%CI: 1.0 to 1.02; <em>p</em> = 0.04).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Women with STEMI who underwent PIT and who required rescue PCI had significantly higher mortality compared to those who achieved initial success of PIT with elective PCI. Pain-to-needle time &gt; 3<!--> <!-->h, ZWOLLE score and creatinine clearance were independent predictors of the need for rescue PCI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101094,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva (English Edition)","volume":"23 1","pages":"Pages 12-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbciev.2015.01.001","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictors of rescue percutaneous coronary intervention after pharmacoinvasive strategy in women\",\"authors\":\"José Marconi Almeida Sousa ,&nbsp;Adriano Henrique Pereira Barbosa ,&nbsp;Adriano Caixeta ,&nbsp;Pedro Ivo de Marqui Moraes ,&nbsp;Daniel Garoni Peternelli ,&nbsp;Guilherme Melo Ferreira ,&nbsp;Eryca Vanessa ,&nbsp;Helena Nogueira Soufen ,&nbsp;Iran Gonçalves ,&nbsp;Silvio Reggi ,&nbsp;Antônio Célio Camargo Moreno ,&nbsp;Antônio Carlos Camargo Carvalho ,&nbsp;Claudia M. Rodrigues Alves\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rbciev.2015.01.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Pharmacoinvasive therapy (PIT) is feasible in patients with acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation (STEMI) when timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unavailable. In this study, we compared women who underwent successful reperfusion PIT with those who required rescue PCI, to identify potential predictors of thrombolytic failure.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>From January 2010 to November 2014, 327 consecutive women with STEMI were referred to a tertiary hospital, 206 after successful thrombolysis (63%) and 121 who required rescue PCI. The groups were compared regarding demographic, clinical and angiographic outcomes, and clinical (TIMI, GRACE, and ZWOLLE CADILLAC) and bleeding (CRUSADE) risk scores. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of thrombolytic failure.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was no significant difference between the demographic characteristics or the medical history of the groups. Rescue PCI group had significantly higher values of the evaluated scores. Clinical hospital complications and mortality (2.5% vs. 22.0%; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001) were more frequent in rescue PCI group. The independent variables associated with rescue PCI were pain-to-needle time &gt; 3<!--> <!-->h (OR: 3.07, 95%CI: 1.64 to 5.75; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001), ZWOLLE score (OR: 1.25; 95%CI: 1.14 to 1.37; <em>p</em> = 0.0001) and creatinine clearance (OR: 1.009, 95%CI: 1.0 to 1.02; <em>p</em> = 0.04).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Women with STEMI who underwent PIT and who required rescue PCI had significantly higher mortality compared to those who achieved initial success of PIT with elective PCI. Pain-to-needle time &gt; 3<!--> <!-->h, ZWOLLE score and creatinine clearance were independent predictors of the need for rescue PCI.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva (English Edition)\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 12-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbciev.2015.01.001\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva (English Edition)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214123515000046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214123515000046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:在无法及时进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的急性心肌梗死st段抬高(STEMI)患者中,药物侵入治疗(PIT)是可行的。在这项研究中,我们比较了成功进行再灌注PIT的女性和需要救助性PCI的女性,以确定溶栓失败的潜在预测因素。方法2010年1月至2014年11月,连续327例STEMI患者转诊至三级医院,其中206例溶栓成功(63%),121例需要PCI抢救。比较两组的人口学、临床和血管造影结果,以及临床(TIMI、GRACE和ZWOLLE CADILLAC)和出血(CRUSADE)风险评分。多变量logistic回归模型用于确定溶栓失败的预测因素。结果两组患者的人口学特征及病史差异无统计学意义。PCI抢救组的评分明显高于对照组。临床医院并发症和死亡率(2.5%对22.0%;p & lt;0.0001)在PCI抢救组更常见。与抢救PCI相关的自变量为:痛到针时间>3 h (OR: 3.07, 95%CI: 1.64 ~ 5.75;p & lt;0.0001), ZWOLLE评分(OR: 1.25;95%CI: 1.14 ~ 1.37;p = 0.0001)和肌酐清除率(OR: 1.009, 95%CI: 1.0 ~ 1.02;P = 0.04)。结论:STEMI患者行PIT和需要抢救性PCI的死亡率明显高于行选择性PCI的初步成功患者。从痛到针的时间3h、ZWOLLE评分和肌酐清除率是是否需要行PCI抢救的独立预测因子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Predictors of rescue percutaneous coronary intervention after pharmacoinvasive strategy in women

Background

Pharmacoinvasive therapy (PIT) is feasible in patients with acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation (STEMI) when timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unavailable. In this study, we compared women who underwent successful reperfusion PIT with those who required rescue PCI, to identify potential predictors of thrombolytic failure.

Methods

From January 2010 to November 2014, 327 consecutive women with STEMI were referred to a tertiary hospital, 206 after successful thrombolysis (63%) and 121 who required rescue PCI. The groups were compared regarding demographic, clinical and angiographic outcomes, and clinical (TIMI, GRACE, and ZWOLLE CADILLAC) and bleeding (CRUSADE) risk scores. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of thrombolytic failure.

Results

There was no significant difference between the demographic characteristics or the medical history of the groups. Rescue PCI group had significantly higher values of the evaluated scores. Clinical hospital complications and mortality (2.5% vs. 22.0%; p < 0.0001) were more frequent in rescue PCI group. The independent variables associated with rescue PCI were pain-to-needle time > 3 h (OR: 3.07, 95%CI: 1.64 to 5.75; p < 0.0001), ZWOLLE score (OR: 1.25; 95%CI: 1.14 to 1.37; p = 0.0001) and creatinine clearance (OR: 1.009, 95%CI: 1.0 to 1.02; p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Women with STEMI who underwent PIT and who required rescue PCI had significantly higher mortality compared to those who achieved initial success of PIT with elective PCI. Pain-to-needle time > 3 h, ZWOLLE score and creatinine clearance were independent predictors of the need for rescue PCI.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention in smokers Right heart catheterization through ultrasound-guided antecubital vein approach Transition between ticagrelor and two different doses of clopidogrel at hospital discharge in patients with acute coronary syndrome submitted to percutaneous coronary intervention Rare form of coronary fistula draining into the right ventricular apex Evaluation of scattered radiation and impact of local protective devices in an interventional cardiology laboratory
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1