非 st 段抬高急性冠脉综合征介入治疗 - 策略与选择 阜外心血管病医院 ...
DESCRIPTION
非 ST 段抬高急性冠脉综合征介入治疗 - 策略与选择 阜外心血管病医院 乔树宾. ACS. 2.3 million hospital admissions ACS ( 230 万/年 ACS 住院患者). UA / NSTEMI. STEMI. 1.43 million admissions per year (143万/年患者占63% ). 829,000 admissions per year (82.9万/年患者占36%). ACS 住院患者 ( NSTE-ACS vs STEMI). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
非 ST 段抬高急性冠脉综合征介入治疗- 策略与选择
阜外心血管病医院 乔树宾
ACS 住院患者( NSTE-ACS vs STEMI )
National Center for Health Statistics. 2001.
ACS
2.3 million hospital admissions ACS ( 230 万 / 年 ACS 住院患者)
UA / NSTEMIUA / NSTEMI
1.43 million admissions per year
( 143 万 / 年患者占 63% )
STEMISTEMI
829,000 admissions per year
( 82.9 万 / 年患者占 36% )
ACS 主要发病机理
• 动脉粥样硬化斑块 -- 不稳定或破裂• 血栓形成
炎症炎症细胞细胞
少量平滑肌少量平滑肌细胞细胞
激活的巨噬细胞激活的巨噬细胞
血栓
ACS 的病理生理基础
CK- MB or Troponin Troponin elevated or not
Adapted from Michael Davies Adapted from Michael Davies
ACS 无持续 ST 段抬高 ACS 伴持续 ST 段抬高
ACS 的临床分型
ACS
ST 段持续抬高的 ACS 无 ST 段抬高的 ACS
cTnT ( cTnI ) ≥0.1μg/L
或 CK-MB≥ 正常上限的 2 倍cTnT ( cTnI ) < 0.1μg/L
或 CK-MB< 正常上限的 2 倍
STEMI NSTEMI UA
非 ST 段抬高 ACS 的治疗
抗血小板治疗 抗凝治疗 抗缺血治疗 调脂治疗 介入治疗 冠脉搭桥
抗栓—不溶栓抗血小板、抗凝
PCI ?!
诊 断• 常规血生化,特别包括 Tn T 或 I• 监测心电 ST 段的变化• 超声心动图检查 如需排除主动脉夹层,做 MRI ; 排除肺栓塞行 CT 或核素检查• 观察对抗缺血治疗的效果• 评定危险记分• 评价出血的危险性
NSTE-ACS 危险分层
• 临床因素– 年龄– 原有基础的左室功能– 冠脉解剖– 糖尿病及肾肺功能异常等其它合并病
• 心绞痛的病史特点
• 心电图或动态心电图 心肌缺血的表现 ST段和 T 波改变
• 肌钙蛋白• C反应蛋白• 纤维蛋白肽A• BNP 或 NTproBNP
NSTE-ACS危险分层方法 ---- 早期 CAG的价值 早期冠脉造影目的: 病变范围和分布、狭窄程度和部位、适合何种血管重建术等。
早期冠脉造影 ------ 提高预后分层的可靠性 ------ 确定治疗方案的有效方法: ① 没有病变可迅速出院 ② 罪犯病变适合 PCI 者可立即介入治疗加快出院 ③ 左主干病变、复杂病变伴左室功能不全者迅速 CABG ------ 发现高危病人,使患者从早期血管重建术中获益
ACC/AHA :治疗的选择(一)
• 有创治疗:1. 尽管充分药物治疗仍发生静息或低水平活动心绞痛;2.TnT 或 TnI 升高;3. 新出现的 ST 压低;4.HF 体征和症状或新出现或加重的二尖瓣返流;5. 无创检查有高危的证据;6. 持续性室速;7. 六个月内曾 PCI ;8. 先前 CABG ;9. 危险积分属高危( TIMI , GRACE );10. 左心室功能降低( LVEF<40% )
ACC/AHA :治疗的选择(二)
• 保守治疗:计分属低危险( TIMI , GRACE )无高危特征的患者或医生选择
2007-ESC 介入治疗紧急( Urgent )
1. 患者出现持续性或反复胸痛,伴有或不伴有 ST 改变(≥ 2mm )或深的倒置 T波,抗缺血治疗效果不好
2. 出现心衰临床症状或血流动力学不稳定3. 致命性心律失常( VF 、 VT )
早期 <72 小时1.Tn T 或 I↑ 2. 动态 ST 或 T 改变(有症状或无症状)3. 糖尿病 4. 肾功能异常( GFR<60ml/min/1.73m2 )5. 左心室功能降低( LVEF<40% )6. 梗塞后心绞痛7. 有 MI 病史8.6 个月内行 PCI , 有 CABG 史9. 中高 GRACE 危险记分
不做或择期做• 无再发胸痛• 无心衰的体征• 无新的 ECG 改变(就诊 6-12 小时)• TnT 或 I 正常(就诊 6-12 小时)
0.2 0.5 1 2 5
Favors Invasive Favors Conservative
Odds Ratio Death or MI
OR 0.82, P=0.001
Trial
TIMI 3B
VANQWISH
MATE
FRISC II
TACTICS
RITA 3
TOTAL
Mehta SR et al. JAMA 2005;293:2908-17
5.1% 8.1%
27.2% 28.0%
12.0% 8.9%
4.3% 11.4%
4.0% 5.3%
7.4% 10.9%
VINO 4.8% 14.8%
Inv Cons
7.4% 11.0%
Invasive Management of UA/NSTEMI Meta-analysis: Death/MI at 17 mo. F/U
Overall 12.2 14.4
Trials < 1999* 19.3 19.6Trials > 1999† 9.4 12.4
Troponin +ve 10.0 14.0Troponin –ve 6.7 7.4
Any Marker +ve 14.7 17.4Any Marker -ve 7.7 8.5
Favors Invasive Favors Conservative
0.5 1 2
Trial Inv(%)
Cons(%)
Odds Ratio P value
0.0010.82
0.400.900.0120.82
0.420.890.0010.69
0.00010.730.920.99
*TIMI 3B, VANQWISH and MATE† FRISC II, TACTICS, VINO, RITA 3Data by troponin status available only in FRISC II, TACTICS, RITA 3
Invasive Management of UA/NSTEMI Meta-analysis: Subgroups
Mehta SR et al. JAMA 2005;293:2908-17
Death or MI at Followup
36018090300
Pro
bab
ility
of
Pro
bab
ility
of
DDe
ath
eat
h
.04
.03
.02
.01
0
Non-Invasive (n = 1235)Non-Invasive (n = 1235)
Invasive (n = 1222)Invasive (n = 1222)
InvasiveInvasive Noninvasive Noninvasive RR (95 % CI) RR (95 % CI) 2.2 %2.2 % 4.0 %4.0 % 0.56 (0.35 - 0.89) p = 0.018 0.56 (0.35 - 0.89) p = 0.018
Wallentin, Lancet 2000Wallentin, Lancet 2000Wallentin, Lancet 2000Wallentin, Lancet 2000
FRISC-II Mortality at One-Year
Invasive Vs. Conservative Management Strategies
FRISC II: 5 Year Outcomes
End point
Invasivestrategy (%)
Noninvasive strategy (%)
Relative risk (95% CI)
Death or MI
19.9 24.50.81
(0.69–0.95)
All-cause
mortality9.7 10.1
0.95 (0.75–1.21)
MI 12.9 17.70.73
(0.60–0.89)
Lagerqvist B. World Congress of Cardiology 2006; September 4, 2006, Barcelona, Spain.Lagerqvist B. World Congress of Cardiology 2006; September 4, 2006, Barcelona, Spain.
FRISC II: 5 Year OutcomesDeath or MI at 5 years in high-, medium-, and low-risk patientsDeath or MI at 5 years in high-, medium-, and low-risk patients
End pointInvasive
strategy (%)Noninvasive strategy (%)
Relative risk (95% CI)
Death or MI in high-risk patients
(FRISC 4–7)32.7 41.6
0.79 (0.64–0.97)
Death or MI in
medium-risk
patients
(FRISC 2–3)
14.6 20.40.72 (0.55–1.1
3)
Death or MI in low-riskpatients (FRISC 0–1) 10.3 8.2
1.26 (0.66–2.40)
Lagerqvist B. World Congress of Cardiology 2006; September 4, 2006, Barcelona, Spain.Lagerqvist B. World Congress of Cardiology 2006; September 4, 2006, Barcelona, Spain.
Routine vs Selective InvasiveStrategies in ACS
Adapted from Mehta S, et al. Adapted from Mehta S, et al. JAMA. JAMA. 2005;293;2908-2917.2005;293;2908-2917.
Odds Ratio (95% CI)0.1 1.0
OR - 0.82OR - 0.8295% CI, 0.72-0.9395% CI, 0.72-0.93
P < 0.001P < 0.001
OR - 0.82OR - 0.8295% CI, 0.72-0.9395% CI, 0.72-0.93
P < 0.001P < 0.001
Total Total 561/4608 (12.2) 561/4608 (12.2) 663/4604 (14.4)663/4604 (14.4)
Composite of Death or Myocardial InfarctionNo./Total (%)
FavorsRoutineInvasive
FavorsSelectiveInvasive
SourceSource RoutineRoutineInvasiveInvasive
SelectiveSelectiveInvasiveInvasive
TIMI IIIB TIMI IIIB 86/740 (11.6) 101/733 (13.8) 86/740 (11.6) 101/733 (13.8)
VANQWISH 152/462 (32.9) 139/458 (30.3)VANQWISH 152/462 (32.9) 139/458 (30.3)
MATE 16/111 (14.4) 11/90 (12.2)MATE 16/111 (14.4) 11/90 (12.2)
FRISC II 127/1222 (10.4) 174/1235 (14.1)FRISC II 127/1222 (10.4) 174/1235 (14.1)
TACTICS 81/1114 (7.3) 105/1106 (9.5)TACTICS 81/1114 (7.3) 105/1106 (9.5)
VINO 4/64 (6.3) 15/67 (22.4)VINO 4/64 (6.3) 15/67 (22.4)
RITA 3 95/895 (10.6) 118/915 (12.9)RITA 3 95/895 (10.6) 118/915 (12.9)
10
StudyMortality during hospitalization
Mortality after discharge
Cons (%)Inv (%) Odds Ratio, 95% CI
TIMI 3B 3.32.8
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10Favors Routine Favors Selective
VANQWISH 11.713.4MATE 6.910.0FRISC II 3.01.2TACTICS 2.81.9VINO 9.41.6RITA 3 7.35.2
Subtotal 1.11.8
TIMI 3B 1.92.2VANQWISH 1.34.5MATE 3.30.9FRISC II 0.91.1TACTICS 0.71.4VINO 4.51.6RITA 3 0.71.6
Subtotal 3.8 4.9
Mehta SR et al. JAMA 2005;293:2908-17
OR 1.60, P=0.007
OR 0.76, P=0.01
Invasive Rx in ACS: Early and Late Mortality
CRUSADE: Invasive Cardiac Procedures in the US
Procedures Performed (non-transfer)
Diagnostic Cath 64 % —Within 48 hours 41 % —Within 24 hours 27 %
Percutaneous Intervention 35 % —Within 48 hours 25 %
Coronary Bypass Grafting 11 %
An International Randomized Trial ofEarly Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies
in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes
FUNDED BY THE CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH
Grant # 150904
TIMACS Timing of Intervention
in patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS Study ObjectiveStudy Objective
To determine whether early intervention is superior to delayed
intervention in patients with high risk non-ST segment elevation acute
coronary syndrome
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
Design, Eligibility Criteria and Design, Eligibility Criteria and ProtocolProtocol
UA or NSTEMI2 of 3 Criteria: Age > 60, ischemic EKG Δ or ↑ biomarker
AND suitable for revascularization
RANDOMIZE*
Early Invasive
Coronary angiography as soon as possible (no later than 24 hours)
followed by PCI or CABG
Delayed Invasive
Coronary angiography any time >36 hrs followed by PCI or CABG
ASA, clopidogrel, GP IIb/IIIa antagonist as per routine practice
*Center chose randomization ratio 1:1, 1:2 or 2:1 Early: Delayed
ExcludedContraindication for LMWH or high risk of bleeding or not a suitable candidate
for revascularization
Follow-up at 30 days and 6 months
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS OutcomesOutcomes
Primary Primary
Composite of Death, new MI or Stroke at 6 mo.Composite of Death, new MI or Stroke at 6 mo.
SecondarySecondary
Composite of: Composite of:
1.1. Death, new MI or refractory ischemiaDeath, new MI or refractory ischemia
2.2. Death, new MI, stroke, refractory ischemia or Death, new MI, stroke, refractory ischemia or repeat revascularizationrepeat revascularization
3.3. StrokeStroke
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS Study Flow ChartStudy Flow Chart
TIMACS Stand Alone
N=1,398
TIMACSTotal
N=3,031
TIMACS OASIS 5N=1,633
+
30 Day and 6 month Follow-up 3,029Lost to Follow-up: 4
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
Recommended Medical Recommended Medical TreatmentTreatment
ASA, clopidogrel
GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor at discretion of attending physician (especially if pt is not on a thienopyridine)
Antithrombin:
OASIS 5: Either fondaparinux or enoxaparin
TIMACS stand alone: UFH or LMWH or fondaparinux or bivalirudin (investigator discretion)
Beta blocker
Statin
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
Participating Participating CountriesCountries
North America 650
South America 442
Europe 1065
Asia 846
Australia 28
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
TIMACS Steering TIMACS Steering CommitteeCommittee
A. Avezum – A. Avezum – BrazilBrazil C. Morillo --C. Morillo -- Columbia Columbia
J-P. Bassand – J-P. Bassand – FranceFrance L. Piegas – L. Piegas – BrazilBrazil
W. Boden – W. Boden – USAUSA J. Probstfield – J. Probstfield – USAUSA
J. Col – J. Col – BelgiumBelgium S. Qiao -- S. Qiao -- ChinaChina
R. Diaz – R. Diaz – ArgentinaArgentina H-J Rupprecht – H-J Rupprecht – GermanyGermany
D. Faxon – D. Faxon – USAUSA P. G. Steg – P. G. Steg – FranceFrance
C. Granger – C. Granger – USAUSA J-F. Tanguay--J-F. Tanguay--CanadaCanada
C. Joyner --C. Joyner -- Canada Canada P. Widimsky – P. Widimsky – Czech RepCzech Rep
M. Kenda – M. Kenda – SloveniaSlovenia J. Varigos – J. Varigos – AustraliaAustralia
S. Mehta --S. Mehta -- Canada Canada S. Yusuf -- S. Yusuf -- CanadaCanada
T. Moccetti – T. Moccetti – SwitzerlandSwitzerland J. Zhu – J. Zhu – ChinaChina
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS Study OrganizationStudy Organization
Coordinating Center: PHRI, McMaster University S. Mehta, S. Yusuf, S. Jolly, C. Horsman, S. Chrolavicius, B. Meeks
DSMB: P. Sleight (chair), J. Anderson, D. DeMets, D. Johnstone, D. Holmes
Adjudication Committee Chair: C. Joyner
Coordinator: M. Lawrence
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
Criteria for Crossover from Criteria for Crossover from Delayed Group to Early GroupDelayed Group to Early Group
Refractory ischemiaRefractory ischemia
New MINew MI
Hemodynamic instabilityHemodynamic instability
Crossover from Early to DelayedCrossover from Early to Delayed: 11.9%: 11.9%
Crossover from Delayed to EarlyCrossover from Delayed to Early: 25% : 25%
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
Interventions and Interventions and TimingTiming
EarlyEarlyN=1,593N=1,593
DelayedDelayedN=1,438N=1,438
Coronary Angiography (%)Coronary Angiography (%) 97.697.6 95.595.5
Median time (h Median time (h ± iqr± iqr)) 14 (3-21)14 (3-21) 50 (41-81)50 (41-81)
PCI (%)PCI (%) 59.659.6 55.055.0
Median time (h Median time (h ± iqr± iqr)) 16 (3-23)16 (3-23) 52 (41-101)52 (41-101)
CABG (%)CABG (%) 14.714.7 13.613.6
Median time (d Median time (d ± iqr± iqr)) 7.7 (4.7-17.4)7.7 (4.7-17.4) 10.8 (6.7-19.8)10.8 (6.7-19.8)
Iqr=interquartile range
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS Baseline CharacteristicsBaseline Characteristics
EarlyEarlyN=1,593N=1,593
DelayedDelayedN=1,438N=1,438
AgeAge 65.165.1 65.865.8
% Female% Female 34.834.8 34.734.7
DiabetesDiabetes 26.526.5 27.327.3
Prior MIPrior MI 19.719.7 20.920.9
Prior PCIPrior PCI 13.813.8 14.114.1
Prior CABGPrior CABG 7.07.0 7.37.3
Prior StrokePrior Stroke 7.27.2 7.57.5
Ischemic ECG Ischemic ECG ΔΔ 80.580.5 79.979.9
Elevated BiomarkerElevated Biomarker 77.277.2 76.976.9
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS In-Hospital MedicationsIn-Hospital MedicationsEarlyEarly
N=1,593N=1,593DelayedDelayedN=1,438N=1,438
ASAASA 98.098.0 98.198.1
ThieonopyridineThieonopyridine 87.287.2 86.786.7
Thienopyridine or GP Thienopyridine or GP IIb/IIIa inhibitorIIb/IIIa inhibitor
88.288.2 88.488.4
GP IIb/IIIa InhibitorGP IIb/IIIa Inhibitor 23.223.2 22.522.5
AnticoagulantAnticoagulant
UFHUFH 24.624.6 24.624.6
LMWHLMWH 64.064.0 64.664.6
FondaparinuxFondaparinux 41.941.9 41.341.3
BivalirudinBivalirudin 0.50.5 0.40.4
Beta BlockerBeta Blocker 86.886.8 86.986.9
StatinStatin 85.085.0 84.384.3
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
Primary and Secondary Primary and Secondary OutcomesOutcomes
EarlyEarlyN=1,593N=1,593
DelayedDelayedN=1,438N=1,438
HR HR 95% CI95% CI PP
Death, MI, Stroke 9.79.7 11.411.4 0.850.85 0.68-1.060.68-1.06 0.150.15
Death, MI, refractory ischemia
9.69.6 13.113.1 0.720.72 0.58-0.890.58-0.89 0.0020.002
Death, MI, Stroke, refractory ischemia + repeat intervention
16.716.7 19.719.7 0.840.84 0.71-0.990.71-0.99 0.0390.039
Death 4.94.9 6.06.0 0.810.81 0.60-1.110.60-1.11 0.190.19
MI 4.84.8 5.85.8 0.830.83 0.61-1.140.61-1.14 0.250.25
Stroke 1.31.3 1.41.4 0.900.90 0.48-1.680.48-1.68 0.740.74
Ref. Ischemia 1.01.0 3.33.3 0.300.30 0.17-0.530.17-0.53 <0.00001<0.00001
Rep. Intervention* 8.88.8 8.68.6 1.041.04 0.82-1.340.82-1.34 0.730.73
*At 30 days: 5.9 vs 4.2%, HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.00-1.95, P=0.047
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
Primary OutcomePrimary OutcomeDeath, MI, or StrokeDeath, MI, or Stroke
Days
Cum
ula
tive
Haz
ard
0.0
0.02
0.06
0.10
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Death/MI/Stroke at 180 days
Early
No. at Risk
Delayed
Early
1438 1328 1269 1254 1234 1229 1211
1593 1484 1413 1398 1391 1382 1363
Delayed
HR 0.8595% CI 0.68-1.06
P= 0.15
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
Secondary OutcomeSecondary OutcomeDeath, MI, or refractory ischemiaDeath, MI, or refractory ischemia
Days
Cum
ulat
ive
Haz
ard
0.0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Death/MI/RI at 180 days
Delayed
Early
No. at Risk
Delayed
Early
1438 1303 1243 1230 1209 1205 1187
1593 1485 1417 1402 1394 1386 1366
HR 0.7295% CI 0.58-0.79
P=0.002
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
Secondary OutcomeSecondary OutcomeDeath, MI, stroke, RFI or Rep Death, MI, stroke, RFI or Rep InterventionIntervention
Death/MI/RI/Stroke/Rep Int at 180 days
Days
Cu
mu
lativ
e H
aza
rd
0.0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Delayed
Early
No. at RiskDelayed
Early
1438 1250 1166 1150 1128 1118 1097
1593 1400 1321 1304 1287 1276 1256
HR 0.8495% CI 0.71-0.99
P=0.039
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS Safety OutcomesSafety Outcomes
EarlyEarlyN=1,593N=1,593
DelayedDelayedN=1,438N=1,438
HR HR CICI PP
Major Bleed during initial hospitalization
3.1 3.5 0.88 0.60-1.31 0.53
ICH 0 0.1
Surg Intervention 0.4 0.8
Retroperitoneal 0.1 0.2
↓ Hb >= 3 g/dL 2.3 2.6
Transfusion ≥ 2 U 2.2 2.9
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS Pre-specified SubgroupsPre-specified Subgroups
Overall
Age < 65>=65
FemaleMale
No ST deviationST deviation
No elevated marker
Elevated Marker
GRACE 0-140GRACE >=141
3031
12931736
10521976
15231508
668
2363
2070961
9.7
6.512.3
9.79.8
7.611.7
10.5
9.5
7.714.1
0.463
0.540
0.722
0.423
0.0097
0.85 ( 0.68 - 1.06 )
0.98 ( 0.64 - 1.52 )0.83 ( 0.64 - 1.07 )
0.77 ( 0.54 - 1.12 )0.89 ( 0.68 - 1.18 )
0.88 ( 0.62 - 1.26 )0.81 ( 0.61 - 1.07 )
1.00 ( 0.62 - 1.60 )
0.81 ( 0.63 - 1.04 )
1.14 ( 0.82 - 1.58 )
0.65 ( 0.48 - 0.88 )
NCharacteristic HR (95% CI) Interaction p-Value
0.33 0.5 0.7 1.00 1.5 2.0 3.0Early better Delayed better
Hazard Ratio (95% CI)
Early%
11.4
6.514.8
12.310.9
8.714.3
10.5
11.7
6.721.6
Delayed%
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS
GRACE Risk Score: Primary GRACE Risk Score: Primary OutcomeOutcome
6.7
21.6
7.7
14.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Death
/MI/
Str
oke a
t 6 m
o.
(%)
Delayed
Early
HR 1.1495% CI 0.82-1.58
P=0.43
HR 0.6595% CI 0.48-0.88
P=0.005
Interaction P=0.0097
Low/Int RiskGRACE Score < 140
N=2070
High RiskGRACE Score >= 140
N=961
Death, MI or Stroke at 6 mo.
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS ConclusionsConclusions
Overall, we found no significant difference between an early and a delayed invasive strategy for prevention of death, MI or stroke (primary outcome).
However, in the subgroup at highest risk (GRACE score > 140), an early invasive strategy was superior to a delayed invasive strategy for prevention of death, MI or stroke
The early invasive strategy also had a large impact on reducing the rate of refractory ischemia by 70%.
There were no significant differences in major bleeding or other safety concerns between the two strategies
TIMACSTIMACSTIMACSTIMACS ImplicationsImplications
1. Most patients with ACS can be managed safely with either an early or a delayed invasive strategy
2. In a subset of patients at highest risk (GRACE score>140), early intervention is superior and these patients should be taken to the cath lab as early as possible
3. In all other patients, the decision regarding timing of intervention can depend on other factors, such as cath lab availability and economic considerations.
TIMACSAn International Randomized Trial of Early Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes
对比非 ST段抬高的急性冠状动脉综合征患者早期与延迟干预治疗的
国际随机研究—中国亚组
TIMACSAn International Randomized Trial of Early Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes
共有815名患者入选本研究 早期介入组 446名,随访率98.4%
延迟介入组 369名,随访率98.8%
临床基线、合并用药及冠造结果两组无统计学差异
冠造的平均时间 早期介入组18.4小时 延迟介入组72.6小时
TIMACSAn International Randomized Trial of Early Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes
180天随访主要终点事件(死亡、心梗、卒中) 早期介入组 9.0% 延迟介入组 14.6% (P=0.01) - 死亡 早期介入组 3.6% 延迟介入组 3.3% (P=0.79) - 心梗 早期介入组 5.2% 延迟介入组 10.8% (P=0.002) - 卒中 早期介入组 0.2% 延迟介入组 0.5% (P=0.87)
TIMACSAn International Randomized Trial of Early Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes
180天随访次要终点事件 死亡、心梗、难治性心肌缺血 早期介入组 14.6% 延迟介入组 22.0% ( P=0.01) 死亡、心梗、卒中、难治性心肌缺血、再次血运重建 早期介入组 26.7% 延迟介入组 30.4% ( P=0.25)
TIMACSAn International Randomized Trial of Early Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
180天
终点
事件
发生
率
早期介入组延迟介入组
**
*P≤0.05
TIMACSAn International Randomized Trial of Early Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes
30天随访主要终点事件(死亡、心梗、卒中) 早期介入组 8.1% 延迟介入组 12.5% (P=0.04) - 死亡 早期介入组 2.9% 延迟介入组 2.2% (P=0.503) - 心梗 早期介入组 5.2% 延迟介入组 10.0% (P=0.01) - 卒中 早期介入组 0% 延迟介入组 0.3% (P=0.45)
TIMACSAn International Randomized Trial of Early Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes
30天随访次要终点事件 死亡、心梗、难治性心肌缺血 早期介入组 13.0% 延迟介入组 19.0% ( P=0.02) 死亡、心梗、卒中、难治性心肌缺血、再次血运重建 早期介入组 23.5% 延迟介入组 26.6% ( P=0.32)
TIMACSAn International Randomized Trial of Early Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
30
%天
终点
事件
发生
率(
)
早期介入组延迟介入组
*
*P≤0.05
TIMACSAn International Randomized Trial of Early Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes
180天随访安全性终点- 大出血 早期介入组 0.7% 延迟介入组 0.5% ( P=1.00)
30天随访安全性终点- 大出血
早期介入组 0.7% 延迟介入组 0.3% ( P=0.75)
ESC 指南(一)• 对于伴有 ST 段动态改变顽固性或反复发作的
心绞痛,心衰,恶性心律失常或血流动力学不稳定者应做紧急冠状动脉造影( I-C )
• 对于具有中高危险特征的患者应做早期冠状动脉造影( <72 小时),进行血运重建( PCI 或CABG )( I-A )
• 不推荐常规对没有中高危险特征的患者进行有创评价( III-C ),建议进行能够诱发心肌缺血的无创检查( I-C )
ESC 血运重建指南(二)• 不推荐对非显著病变进行 PCI ( III-C )
• 选择 BMS 或 DES 时,应仔细认真评估风险 - 效益比,合并病和是否近期非心脏手术停用双重抗血小板药物的可能性( I-C )
ESC 血运重建(三)• 造影没有显著病变—药物治疗• 造影有显著病变:单支病变处理罪犯病变;
多支: PCI 或 CABG 的选择应个体化 有些仅处理罪犯病变以后再择期外科• 提倡介入术前应用 GPIIb/IIIa 拮抗剂• 如计划搭桥,波立维应停用 5 天
NSTE-ACS不完全或完全”罪犯”血管
再血管化治疗 ?
Anibal A Damonte,Argenitina.Am J Cardiol.2007,TCT
出院及出院后的治疗
特别强调• 各种危险因素的控制• 生活方式的改善• 规律服药
NSTE - ACS 介入治疗选择
NSTE - ACS 患者的自然转归差别很大,危险分层有助于判断预后和指导治疗策略。
介入治疗是 ACS 现代治疗整体的一部分。目前更倾向于早期介入干预治疗高危患者。
辅助治疗中可以用很多药物替代,但对于高危患者尽快行心导管检查比选择哪个药物合适更重要。