目前绝大多数临床随机实验显示,直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)是急性心肌梗死患者罪犯血管开通最有效的再灌注方法。然而,在现实中具有开展PCI术能力的心脏中心不多,而且分布不均衡,多分布在中心城市,大部分急性心肌梗死患者从症状初发往往被送到当地基层医院,由于溶栓简单易行,加上担心急性期的搬动,所以病人往往就地接受溶栓治疗。究竟该部分病人是否应该转运到上级医院行直接PCI治疗,转运是否安全,转运导致的治疗延迟是否会抵消PCI的优势,这些一直是大家关心和争论的问题。另外,易化PCI能解决转运实际中的时间延迟问题吗?现就上述问题结合文献作一综述。 At present, the vast majority of clinical randomized trials have shown that direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most effective reperfusion method for criminals in patients with acute myocardial infarction. However, in reality, there are not many heart centers that have the ability to carry out PCI, and the distribution is uneven. They are mostly distributed in central cities. Most patients with acute myocardial infarction are often sent to the local grass-roots hospitals from the initial symptoms. OK, with worry about the acute phase of the move, so patients often receive thrombolytic therapy in situ. Whether these patients should be transplanted to the higher level hospital for direct PCI, whether the transshipment is safe or not, and whether the treatment delay caused by transshipment would offset the advantage of PCI have always been the issues of concern and controversy. In addition, the ease of PCI can solve the problem of time delay in the transfer of the actual? Now on the above issues are reviewed in conjunction with the literature.