4.4 Article

Effect of Coronary Thrombus Aspiration During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention On One-Year Survival (from the FAST-MI 2010 Registry)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 114, 期 11, 页码 1651-1657

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.08.039

关键词

-

资金

  1. French Society of Cardiology
  2. Merck
  3. Eli-LillyDalichi-Sankyo alliance
  4. AstraZeneca
  5. sanofi-aventis
  6. GSK
  7. Novartis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Results from randomized trials evaluating thrombus aspiration (TA) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are confficting. We assessed 1-year survival in STEMI patients participating in the French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation and non STElevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) 2010 according to the use of TA during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). FAST-MI 2010 is a nationwide French registry that included 4,169 patients with acute myocardial infarction at the end of 2010 in 213 centers. Of those, 2,087 patients had STEM, of whom 1,538 had primary PCI, with TA used in 671 (44%). Patients with TA were younger (61 13.5 vs 63 14 years), with a similar risk score of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (140 31 vs 143 34) and a shorter median time from symptom onset (245 vs 285 minutes); location of acute myocardial infarction, history of myocardial infarction, PCI, or coronary artery bypass surgery did not differ significantly. Thirty-day mortality was 2.1% versus 2.1% (adjusted p = 0.18), and the rate of 1-year survival was 95.5% versus 94.8%. Using fully 'adjusted Cox multivariate analysis, hazard ratio for 1-year death was 1.13(95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.94). After propensity 'score matching (480 patients per group), 1-year survival was also similar with both strategies. In a real-world setting of patients admitted with STEMI, the use of TA during primary PCI was not associated with improved 1-year survival. 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据