Ostry zawał serca u pacjenta z wielonaczyniową chorobą wieńcową – strategie postępowania Artykuł przeglądowy

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Adam Kern
Martyna Zaleska
Olga Możeńska
Jacek Bil

Abstrakt

Nawet u połowy pacjentów z zawałem mięśnia sercowego z uniesieniem odcinka ST występują zmiany w kilku naczyniach wieńcowych. Od lat toczą się dyskusje na temat optymalnej strategii postępowania w tej grupie chorych. W najnowszych wytycznych Europejskiego Towarzystwa Kardiologicznego na temat postępowania w tym typie zawału klasę zaleceń IIa o poziomie wiarygodności A uzyskało zalecenie wykonywania rewaskularyzacji zmian w pozostałych naczyniach wieńcowych przed wypisem ze szpitala u pacjentów z chorobą wielonaczyniową hospitalizowanych z powodu zawału serca z uniesieniem odcinka ST. Poniżej prezentujemy przegląd badań zarówno obserwacyjnych, jak i prospektywnych z randomizacją dotyczących tego problemu.

Pobrania

Dane pobrania nie są jeszcze dostepne

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Jak cytować
Kern , A., Zaleska , M., Możeńska , O., & Bil , J. (2018). Ostry zawał serca u pacjenta z wielonaczyniową chorobą wieńcową – strategie postępowania. Kardiologia W Praktyce, 11(4), 21-27. Pobrano z https://www.journalsmededu.pl/index.php/kwp/article/view/1233
Dział
Artykuły

Bibliografia

1. Mendis S., Davis S., Norrving B.: Organizational update: the world health organization global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2014; one more landmark step in the combat against stroke and vascular disease. Stroke 2015; 46(5): e121-122. http://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.008097.
2. Mortality G.B.D., Causes of Death C.: Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 2015; 385(9963): 117-171. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61682-2.
3. Park D.W., Clare R.M., Schulte P.J. et al.: Extent, location, and clinical significance of non-infarct-related coronary artery disease among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA 2014; 312(19): 2019-2027. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.15095.
4. Sorajja P., Gersh B.J., Cox D.A. et al.: Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Eur. Heart J. 2007; 28(14): 1709-1716. http://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehm184.
5. Ibanez B., James S., Agewall S. et al.: 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J. 2017. http://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393.
6. Windecker S., Kolh P., Alfonso F. et al.: 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Kardiologia Polska (Polish Heart Journal) 2014; 72(12): 1253-1379.
7. Levine G.N., Bates E.R., Blankenship J.C. et al.: 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2016; 67(10): 1235-1250. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.005.
8. Cavender M.A., Milford-Beland S., Roe M.T. et al.: Prevalence, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of non-infarct artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am. J. Cardiol. 2009; 104(4): 507-513.
9. Jaguszewski M., Radovanovic D., Nallamothu B.K. et al.: Multivessel versus culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: is more worse? EuroIntervention 2013; 9(8): 909-915. http://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV9I8A153.
10. Santos A.R., Picarra B.C., Celeiro M. et al.: Multivessel approach in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: impact on in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Rev. Port. Cardiol. 2014; 33(2): 67-73. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.repc.2013.07.015.
11. Dziewierz A., Siudak Z., Rakowski T. et al.: Impact of multivessel coronary artery disease and noninfarct-related artery revascularization on outcome of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (from the EUROTRANSFER Registry). Am. J. Cardiol. 2010; 106(3): 342-347.
12. Abe D., Sato A., Hoshi T. et al.: Initial culprit-only versus initial multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Ibaraki Cardiovascular Assessment Study registry. Heart and Vessels 2014; 29(2): 171-177.
13. Iqbal M.B., Ilsley C., Kabir T. et al.: Culprit Vessel Versus Multivessel Intervention at the Time of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Segment – Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 2014; 7(6): 936-943.
14. Braga C.G., Cid-Álvarez A.B., Diéguez A.R. et al.: Multivessel Versus Culprit-only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction: Analysis of an 8-year Registry. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition) 2017; 70(6): 425-432.
15. Corpus R.A., House J.A., Marso S.P. et al.: Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction. Am. Heart J. 2004; 148(3): 493-500. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2004.03.051.
16. Kim M.C., Jeong M.H., Park K.H. et al.: Three-year clinical outcomes of staged, ad hoc and culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Int. J. Cardiol. 2014; 176(2): 505-507. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.07.054.
17. Varani E., Balducelli M., Aquilina M. et al.: Single or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 2008; 72(7): 927-933. http://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21722.
18. Russo J.J., Wells G.A., Chong A.Y. et al.: Safety and Efficacy of Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention During Index Admission for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Disease (Insights from the University of Ottawa Heart Institute STEMI Registry). Am. J. Cardiol. 2015; 116(8): 1157-1162. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.07.029.
19. Ma L.X., Lu Z.H., Wang L. et al.: Culprit vessel only versus “one-week” staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. J. Geriatr. Cardiol. 2015; 12(3): 226-231. http://doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2015.03.001.
20. Lee H.W., Hong T.J., Yang M.J. et al.: Comparison of infarct-related artery vs multivessel revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: analysis from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. Cardiol. J. 2012; 19(3): 256-266.
21. Chen H.C., Tsai T.H., Fang H.Y. et al.: Benefit of revascularization in non-infarct-related artery in multivessel disease patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Int. Heart J. 2010; 51(5): 319-324.
22. Toyota T., Shiomi H., Taniguchi T. et al.: Culprit Vessel-Only vs. Staged Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Circ. J. 2016; 80(2): 371-378. http://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-15-0493.
23. Manari A., Varani E., Guastaroba P. et al.: Long‐term outcome in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease treated with culprit‐only, immediate, or staged multivessel percutaneous revascularization strategies: Insights from the REAL registry. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014; 84(6): 912-922.
24. Hannan E.L., Samadashvili Z., Walford G. et al.: Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2010; 3(1): 22-31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2009.10.017.
25. Jensen L.O., Thayssen P., Farkas D.K. et al.: Culprit only or multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. EuroIntervention 2012; 8(4): 456-464. http://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV8I4A72.
26. Di Mario C., Mara S., Flavio A. et al.: Single vs multivessel treatment during primary angioplasty: results of the multicentre randomised HEpacoat for cuLPrit or multivessel stenting for Acute Myocardial Infarction (HELP AMI) Study. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 2004; 6(3-4): 128-133. http://doi.org/10.1080/14628840310030441.
27. Politi L., Sgura F., Rossi R. et al.: A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Heart 2010; 96(9): 662-667.
28. Wald D.S., Morris J.K., Wald N.J. et al.: Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013; 369(12): 1115-1123.
29. Gershlick A.H., Khan J.N., Kelly D.J. et al.: Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015; 65(10): 963-972.
30. Engstrøm T., Kelbæk H., Helqvist S. et al.: Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3–PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 386(9994): 665-671.
31. Smits P.C., Abdel-Wahab M., Neumann F.J. et al.: Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017; 376(13): 1234-1244.
32. Ghani A., Dambrink J.H., van ‘t Hof A.W. et al.: Treatment of non-culprit lesions detected during primary PCI: long-term follow-up of a randomised clinical trial. Neth. Heart J. 2012; 20(9): 347-353. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-012-0281-y.
33. Lu C., Huang H., Li J. et al.: Complete versus culprit-only revascularization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease: a meta-analysis. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2013; 29(3): 140-149. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2012.08.024.
34. Bangalore S., Toklu B., Wetterslev J.: Complete versus culprit-only revascularization for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015; 8(4): e002142.
35. Elgendy I.Y., Mahmoud A.N., Kumbhani D.J. et al.: Complete or culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017; 10(4): 315-324.