急性心肌梗死合并左束支传导阻滞

急性心肌梗死(AM1)患者束支传导阻滞(BBB)发生率为8％。18％，因左束支较右束支粗且分支多、分布广，心肌必须有较广泛的缺血性病变方可引起左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)，故有其重要的临床意义；此外，LBBB的心室除极起始向量，每使显示心肌梗死的病理性Q波及继发性ST段为之掩盖，抵消急性心肌损伤的ST段抬高，使心肌梗死的特征性QRS波群不为之显示，贻误临床诊断。     

急性心肌梗死合并持续性完全性右束支传导阻滞32例

目的探讨急性心肌梗死（AMI）合并完全性右柬支传导阻滞（CRBBB）的临床特点及对预后的影响。方法对近5年收住我院的AMI病例进行回顾性分析,将临床资料分为两组,其中观察组32例,为新出现持续性完全性右束支传导阻滞的急性心肌梗死患者;对照组270例,为同期收住院的无右束支传导阻滞的急性心肌梗死患者。两组患者进行一般情况、心肌梗死部位、心肌酶水平、心功能情况、并发症、临床经过及住院病死率比较。结果两组一般情况及并发症比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,两组临床经过及住院病死率比较,观察组中的休克、恶性心律失常、前壁心肌梗死,心功能不全、房室传导阻滞的发生率及病死率均较对照组显著增高（P〈0．05）。结论急性心肌梗死出现持续性完全性右束支传导阻滞预示病情严重、并发症发生多,预后差。     

急性心肌梗死合并左束支传导阻滞的心电图诊断

目的：评价Sgarbossa方案在诊断左束支传导阻滞合并心肌梗死的实用性。方法：收集可疑有急性心肌梗死的左束支传导阻滞患者64例，以心肌酶学指标作为急性心肌梗死确诊的客观标准，比较Sgarbossa方案和传统心电图诊断方案在诊断急性心肌梗死中的敏感性，特异性，阳性预测率，阴性预测率等。结果：Sgarbossa方案在诊断合并左束支传导阻滞的急性心肌梗死的敏感性。特异性，阳性预测率，阴性预测率分别为55．2％，94．2％，88．1％，71．1％；传统方案为62．6％，80．6％，72．0％，71．1％。两者相比在特异性阳性预测率方面，Sgarbossa方案优于传统方案，统计学有显著差异（P＜0．05），结论：临床上在Sgarbossa方案的基础上结合传统心电图鉴别诊断指标综合判断可能会提高诊断的敏感性。     

急性心肌梗死并发右束支传导阻滞的临床特点

目的 :探讨伴随急性心肌梗死出现的完全性右束支传导阻滞的临床特点和预后意义。方法 :选择急性心肌梗死合并右束支传导阻滞住院患者 2 1例 (观察组 ) ;无右束支传导阻滞的急性心肌梗死住院患者194例 (对照组 )的CK峰值、心功能Killip分级、严重心率失常发生率、LVEF和住院病死率等情况。结果 :观察组CK峰值 15 30± 10 6 9u/L及CK—MB峰值 2 39± 16 5u/L明显高于对照组 95 6± 713u/L及 117 1±6 0 6u/L ,P <0 0 1;观察组Killip平均级别 2 5 5± 0 95明显高于对照组 1 71± 0 82 ,P <0 0 1;观察组恶性室性心率失常发生率 19 0 % ,明显高于对照组 4 1% ,P <0 0 1;观察组的住院病死率 2 8 6 % ,显著高于对照组 6 7% ,P <0 0 1。结论 :急性心肌梗死出现持续性完全性右束支传导阻滞提示临床病情危险且预后不良。     

右束支传导阻滞对急性心肌梗死预后影响的分析

急性心肌梗死(acute myocardia1 infarction,AMI)起病急,易并发心衰、休克、恶性心律失常等并发症,而右束支传导阻滞(RBBB)的出现常预示着梗死面积大,死亡率高.本文回顾分析了60例急性心肌梗死伴右束支传导阻滞的患者,探讨了右束支传导阻滞对急性心肌梗死预后的影响.     

急性心肌梗死并发束支传导阻滞临床分析

目的：分析急性心肌梗死并发束支传导阻滞的临床特点。方法：对360例急性心肌梗死并发束支传导阻滞情况进行对比分析。结果：前壁组与下壁组比较,并发束支传导阻滞率差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;溶栓组与未溶栓组比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论：溶栓可降低束支传导阻滞的发生率。     

急性心肌梗死并发右束支传导阻滞25例临床分析

目的探讨急性心肌梗死患者出现完全性右束支传导阻滞的临床特点及对预后的影响。方法对近8年来收治的急性心肌梗死患者的资料进行回顾性分析,将临床资料分为两组,观察组(25例)为有新出现持续性完全性右束支传导阻滞的急性心肌梗死患者;对照组(160例)为同期收治的无束支传导阻滞的急性心肌梗死患者。进行一般情况及并发症比较,临床经过及住院病死率比较。结果两组一般情况及并发症比较无明显差异(P>0.05),两组临床经过及住院病死率比较,观察组中的休克、恶性心律失常、前壁心肌梗死的发生率,心功能不全、房室传导阻滞的发生率及病死率均较对照组显著增高(P<0.05)。结论急性心肌梗死出现持续性完全性右束支传导阻滞提示病情重、并发症发生多,预后差。     

20例急性心肌梗死合并完全性左束支传导阻滞临床分析

目的对急性心肌梗死合并完全性左束支传导阻滞的各种心电图表现进行分析和讨论。方法观察20例急性心肌梗死合并完全性左束支传导阻滞临床心电图表现。结果急性心肌梗死合并完全性左束支传导阻滞的心电图表现多样。结论胸痛患者如果合并左束支传导阻滞时，要高度警惕AMI，详细询问病史，观查ECG动态演变，监测心肌坏死标志物CTnI，只有这样才能避免漏诊和误诊。     

急性心肌梗死合并新发生完全性右束支传导阻滞的临床意义

目的 :探究伴随急性心肌梗死出现的完全性右束支传导阻滞的临床意义。方法 :比较有新出现持续性的完全性右束支传导阻滞的急性心肌梗死 2 5例 (观察组 )与无完全性右束支传导阻滞的急性心肌梗死 5 0例 (对照组 )的CK峰值、killip分级、严重心律失常发生率及住院病死率。结论 :急性心肌梗死新出现的持续性完全性右束支传导阻滞为一恶性预兆 ,提示临床病情危险 ,预后不良。     

急性心肌梗死合并新发生完全性右束支传导阻滞的临床意义

目的:探究伴随急性心肌梗死出现的完全性右束支传导阻滞的临床意义.方法:比较有新出现持续性的完全性右束支传导阻滞的急性心肌梗死25例(观察组)与无完全性右束支传导阻滞的急性心肌梗死50例(对照组)的CK峰值、killip分级、严重心律失常发生率及住院病死率.结论:急性心肌梗死新出现的持续性完全性右束支传导阻滞为一恶性预兆,提示临床病情危险,预后不良.     

直接血管成形术与静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死对照的系统评价(摘要)

静脉溶栓是治疗急性心肌梗死的一个经典、疗效确切的方法,但是有些病人有溶栓的禁忌症或者失去溶栓的时机,并且有溶栓失败、再闭塞的可能,这使得该方法具有一定的局限性。而随着介入治疗技术的迅猛发展,有学者提出直接经皮介入冠状动脉内血管成形术(primay PTCA)优于静脉溶栓治疗。如何正确认识及选择恰当的治疗方法,为回答这个问题,我们摘译了Cochrane图书馆中比较直接血管成形术与静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死的随机对照试验的Cochrane系统评估文献。     

直接经皮冠脉成形术与静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死的疗效比较研究

比较直接经皮冠状动脉腔内成形术 (PTCA)与重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂 (rt- PA)静脉溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死 (AMI)的疗效。方法 :38例患者中 2 0例接受 rt- PA药物溶栓治疗 ,18例接受直接PTCA治疗 ,观察两组之间梗死相关血管 (IRA)的再通率、左室射血分数 (L VEF)、再梗发生率及病死率等。结果 :溶栓组 IRA再通的患者有 15例 ,再通率 75 .0 % ,直接 PTCA组 IRA成功再通的患者有 18例 ,再通率10 0 .0 % ,两组差异有显著性意义 (P<0 .0 5 ) ;溶栓组 L VEF为 0 .5 0± 0 .13,直接 PTCA组 L VEF为 0 .5 8±0 .10 ,两组差异有显著性意义 (P<0 .0 5 ) ;再次心肌梗死发生率两组分别为 10 .0 %与 0 .0 % (P>0 .0 5 ) ;住院病死率两组分别为 5 .3%与 5 .6 % (P>0 .0 5 )。结论 :直接 PTCA比静脉溶栓更充分有效地开通 IRA,改善患者心功能。     

Diver CE versus Guardwire Plus for thrombectomy in patients with inferior myocardial infarction: a trial of aspiration of thrombus during primary angioplasty for inferior myocardial infarction

Background Different feasible and safe thrombectomy and distal protection devices have been used in clinical practice. The efficiency and safety of adjunct thrombectomy using Diver CE device (Invatec, Italy) versus Guardwire Plus device (Medtronic, USA) before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were compared in patients with acute inferior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for less than 12 hours, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade 0 to 1, and total occlusion of the proximal right coronary artery (≥3 mm in diameter) in a prospective randomized single-center study.Methods The primary end point was the magnitude of ST-segment resolution (STR) (&gt;70% ) measured immediately, 90 minutes and 6 hours after PCI, myocardial blush grade and slow flow or no-reflow. Secondary end points were left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) including death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and stroke at 30 days.Results A total of 122 patients were equally divided into Diver CE group and Guardwire Plus group, which were comparable by age ((60±14) years vs (60±13) years), male (82% vs 84%), diabetes (31% vs 28%), previous coronary artery disease (25% vs 23%), onset-to-angiogram ((350±185) min vs (345±180) min), and use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (11% vs 13%). The magnitude of ST-segment resolution was similar in the two groups as ST-segment resolution &gt;70% (57% vs 59%; P&gt;0.05). Similar slow flow/no-reflow rates were observed in the Diver CE group (8%) and the Guardwire Plus group (7%). TIMI flow grade 3 was obtained in 95% vs 97% patients, respectively (P&gt;0.05). Myocardial blush grade 3 was similar (70% vs 72%; P&gt;0.05). Thirty-day clinical outcome was comparable (LVEF, 0.54±0.12 vs 0.53±0.11; death, 3% vs 3%; myocardial infarction, 2% vs 0%; and target vessel revascularization, 2% vs 2%; P&gt;0.05, respectively). Conclusions Removal of thrombus burden with the Diver CE catheter before stenting leads to similar improvement of myocardial reperfusion in patients with inferior STEMI and total occlusion of the proximal right coronary artery (≥3 mm in diameter) compared with the Guardwire Plus device, as illustrated by a reduced risk of distal embolization and improved ST-segment resolution.     

Diver CE versus Guardwire Plus for thrombectomy in patients with inferior myocardial infarction: a trial of aspiration of thrombus during primary angioplasty for inferior myocardial infarction

Background Different feasible and safe thrombectomy and distal protection devices have been used in clinical practice. The efficiency and safety of adjunct thrombectomy using Diver CE device (Invatec, Italy) versus Guardwire Plus device (Medtronic, USA) before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were compared in patients with acute inferior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for less than 12 hours, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade 0 to 1, and total occlusion of the proximal right coronary artery (≥3 mm in diameter) in a prospective randomized single-center study. Methods The primary end point was the magnitude of ST-segment resolution (STR) (&gt;70% ) measured immediately, 90 minutes and 6 hours after PCI, myocardial blush grade and slow flow or no-reflow. Secondary end points were left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) including death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and stroke at 30 days.Results A total of 122 patients were equally divided into Diver CE group and Guardwire Plus group, which were comparable by age ((60±14) years vs (60±13) years), male (82% vs 84%), diabetes (31% vs 28%), previous coronary artery disease (25% vs 23%), onset-to-angiogram ((350±185) min vs (345±180) min), and use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (11% vs 13%). The magnitude of ST-segment resolution was similar in the two groups as ST-segment resolution &gt;70% (57% vs 59%; P&gt;0.05). Similar slow flow/no-reflow rates were observed in the Diver CE group (8%) and the Guardwire Plus group (7%). TIMI flow grade 3 was obtained in 95% vs 97% patients, respectively (P&gt;0.05). Myocardial blush grade 3 was similar (70% vs 72%; P&gt;0.05). Thirty-day clinical outcome was comparable (LVEF, 0.54±0.12 vs 0.53±0.11; death, 3% vs 3%; myocardial infarction, 2% vs 0%; and target vessel revascularization, 2% vs 2%; P&gt;0.05, respectively). Conclusions Removal of thrombus burden with the Diver CE catheter before stenting leads to similar improvement of myocardial reperfusion in patients with inferior STEMI and total occlusion of the proximal right coronary artery (≥3 mm in diameter) compared with the Guardwire Plus device, as illustrated by a reduced risk of distal embolization and improved ST-segment resolution.     

急性心肌梗死直接血管成形术对P波离散度的影响

目的 :探讨急性心肌梗死 (AMI)行直接经皮腔内冠状动脉成形术 (PTCA)前后P波离散度 (Pdisp)的变化。方法 :测定 31例AMI患者行直接PTCA前、PTCA后 2h及PTCA后 1周之体表12导联心电图的Pdisp。结果 :直接PTCA前、PTCA后 2h及PTCA后 1周的Pdisp分别为 (44 3±18 1)ms、 (35 2± 16 3)ms、 (33 4± 15 7)ms ,PTCA前Pdisp与PTCA后 2h及 1周Pdisp相比均有显著差异 (P <0 0 5 ) ,而PTCA后 2h与PTCA后 1周Pdisp比较差异无显著意义 (P >0 0 5 ) ,31例AMI中PTCA前有 5例发生房性心律失常 ,其中Pdisp为 (5 5 4± 11 3)ms ,其余 2 6例无房性心律失常 ,其Pdisp为 (40 2± 15 5 )ms ,两者Pdisp相比差异显著 (P <0 0 5 ) ,PTCA后 2h两者Pdisp相比差异无显著意义 (P >0 0 5 )。结论 :AMI行直接PTCA能降低Pdisp ,减少房性心律失常的发生。     

院内获得性血小板减少症对因急性心肌梗死行直接血管成形术的患者的影响

经皮冠状动脉介入术（PCI）后出现的血小板减少症可能导致出血并发症、血制品输注需求以及血栓形成或缺血并发症。因急性心肌梗死（AMI）行直接PCI治疗的患者中，血小板减少症的发生率和预后意义尚未被评估。在CADILLAC试验中，2082例AMI发生12h内且未进行除颤治疗的患者被前瞻性随机分配接受球囊血管成形术±阿昔单抗或支架置入术±阿昔单抗治疗。     

急诊经皮冠状动脉球囊扩张成形术延期支架植入对急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者预后的影响

目的 行急诊经皮冠状动脉球囊扩张成形术(PTCA)使心肌梗死溶栓试验(TIMI)血流达3级后,比较延期支架植入与即刻支架植入两种治疗方式对预后的影响.方法 58例急性ST段抬高的心肌梗死患者经急诊PTCA使TIMI血流达3级后,随机分为延期支架组和即时支架组,每组29例.延期支架组先结束介入治疗,强化抗血小板治疗,1周后再接受支架植入术.即时支架组于PTCA后植入支架.观察随访至30 d时的心血管事件(包括致命性或非致命性心肌梗死、血运重建、心源性死亡、各种因为的死亡、支架植入时无复流或慢血流及支架血栓).结果 延期支架组的心血管事件发生率为6.9 %(2/29),显著低于即时支架组的27.6%(8/29,P=0.079).延期支架组无1例发生无复流现象,而即时支架组无复流现象的发生率为24.1%(7/29,P=0.01).结论 治疗冠状动脉急性血栓病变,在行PTCA使TIMI血流达3级后,先予强化抗血小板治疗支持,再延期植入支架,可取得与即刻支架植入等同的效果,更有利于减少无复流现象的发生.     

Primary coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction.

It is well established that recanalisation of the infarct-related artery is of great benefit in the early hours after acute myocardial infarction. This can be achieved by the use of thrombolytic agents and/or by percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). This article reviews data on the role of primary PTCA and summarises current opinion on its use.