北京大学学报（医学版） ›› 2015, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (3): 494-498. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2015.03.023
夏经钢1*，曲杨2*，胡少东1，许骥1，尹春琳1，徐东1△
XIA Jing-gang1*, QU Yang2* ，HU Shao-dong1, XU Ji1, YIN Chun-lin1, XU Dong1△
摘要： Objective： To evaluate the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy of ticagrelor on patients suffering from acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods: In the study, 96 patients suffering from acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction onset within 12 h undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention from May to October in 2013 were randomly divided into ticagrelor group (n=48) and clopidogrel group (n=48) by using the method of random number table. Ticagrelor and clopidogrel antiplatelet treatment were used before and after operation. Their baseline data, coronary artery disease characteristics, platelet count, adenosine diphosphate(ADP)-induced platelet inhibition rate by thrombelastograph after 5 days of treatment, the major adverse cardiovascular events of the follow up for 6 months and bleeding complications were observed and compared in the two groups. Results: The differences between the two groups of patients with their baseline data, the features of coronary artery lesions, platelet count before and after 5 days of treatment had no statistical significance (P>0.05). ADP induced platelet inhibition rate ［(80.2±10.7)%］ after 5 days of treatment in ticagrelor group was significantly higher than that in clopidogrel group ［(75.3±12.1)%, P<0.05］. The two groups of patients were followed up for 6 months, 8 cases of major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in clopidogrel group, 2 cases of major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in ticagrelor group, and there was significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05). The two groups (7 cases of 48 patients in ticagrelor group vs. 3 cases of 48 patients in clopidogrel group) had no statistically significant difference in bleeding complications (P>0.05).Conclusion: Antiplatelet therapy of ticagrelor on patients suffering from acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing emergency PCI has good efficacy and safety.
中图分类号:
| [1] | 高卿,陈彧,刘刚,陈生龙,董穗欣. 心肌梗死后室间隔穿孔:非选择性病例的外科临床结果[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(6): 1103-1107. |
| [2] | 张岩, 霍勇. 推动我国医疗急救体系建设：从急性心肌梗死救治开始[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 46(6): 829-831. |
| [3] | 陈少敏, 牟笛, 崔鸣, 任川, 张舒, 郭丽君. 直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死患者血清组胺水平与心电图ST段回落的关系[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2014, 46(6): 875-878. |
| [4] | 龚艳君, 胡灏, 蒋捷, 洪涛, 李建平, 陈明, 刘兆平, 霍勇. 临界病变造影指导与血流储备分数指导的冠状动脉介入治疗策略比较[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 46(6): 844-847. |
| [5] | 王宁, 王贵松, 于海奕, 米琳, 郭丽君, 高炜. 远隔缺血后适应在急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术中的心肌保护作用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 46(6): 838-843. |
| [6] | 夏经钢, 曲杨, 胡少东, 许骥, 尹春琳, 徐东. 强化调脂对行非心脏手术的冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病患者的心肌保护作用及机制初探[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 46(4): 601-605. |
| [7] | 孟磊，王洁，丁文惠，杨颖，齐丽彤，霍勇. 急性心肌梗死患者血浆骨桥蛋白变化与左心室重构[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2013, 45(4): 630-. |
| [8] | 李蓬*, 和璐, 沙月琴, 栾庆先 . 陈旧性心肌梗死患者的牙周状况[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2013, 45(1): 22-26. |
| [9] | 赵威, 白瑾, 张福春, 王鸿艳, 高炜. 急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者早期心肺运动试验的安全性[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2011, 43(4): 608-611. |
| [10] | 郑凌冰, 郭艳红, 于海奕, 米琳, 汪宇鹏, 高炜. 血清生长分化因子-15与急性冠状动脉综合征的相关性分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2011, 43(2): 250-254. |
| [11] | 陈明, 王新刚, 霍勇. 主动脉内球囊反搏在心源性休克中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2009, 41(4): 474-476. |
| [12] | 白瑾, 冯新恒, 赵威, 王鸿艳, 李雪梅, 张永珍, 高炜. 运动负荷E/Em比值评价急性心肌梗死早期左心室充盈压的价值[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2009, 41(3): 328-334. |
| [13] | 赵磊, 王天龙. 冠心病合并多次陈旧性心肌梗死患者原位肝移植的围术期管理1例[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2009, 41(2): 239-241. |
| [14] | 杨波, 洪涛, 刘倩竹, 冯雪茹, 龚艳君, 卜定方, 李雪梅, 薛林, 赵春玉, 霍勇. 人趋化素样因子1基因转移对急性心肌梗死大鼠心功能的影响[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2009, 41(2): 144-147. |
| [15] | 朱慧楠, 霍勇, 蒋捷, 张岩, 亢爱春, 何华. 非ST段抬高心肌梗死预后因素分析及合并肾功能不全的临床特征[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2008, 40(5): 533-537. |
|
