| 替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷治疗ACS择期PCI术后患者效果分析 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 王贺阳,许晓明,韩雅玲. 替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷治疗ACS择期PCI术后患者效果分析[J]. 心脏杂志, 2017, 29(6): 667-671 |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 王贺阳 许晓明 韩雅玲 |
| |
| 作者单位： | (1.沈阳军区总医院心血管内科，辽宁 沈阳 110016; |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目的 分析替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷对急性冠脉综合征（ACS）患者择期经皮冠状动脉介入（PCI）治疗的有效性及安全性。方法 诊断为ACS并择期行PCI术的患者1 159例随访1年，依患者服用双重抗血小板药物不同分为替格瑞洛组(n=312)和氯吡格雷组(n=847)，其中3例在随访过程中排除，27例失访，最终纳入1 129例，替格瑞洛组(n=303)和氯吡格雷组(n=826)。比较两组患者基线资料的差异及主要心血管不良事件（MACE，包含心血管死亡、心肌梗死、缺血性卒中）和大出血事件（美国出血学术研究会制定的出血分级标准中Ⅱ型、Ⅲ型及Ⅴ型出血）的发生率。结果 替格瑞洛组患者肌钙蛋白I（TnI）偏高，左室射血分数（LVEF）值偏低，植入支架数多，最大狭窄率高，复杂病变比例高，桡动脉入路少，分次PCI比例高（均P<0.05）。替格瑞洛组发生MACE事件（15.2%）与氯吡格雷组（12.6%）相比〔危险比(hazard ratio,HR)=1.226，95%可信区间0.867~1.735，P=0.249〕及大出血事件替格瑞洛组（0.7%）与氯吡格雷组（0.7%）相比（HR=1.093，95%可信区间0.212~5.634，P=1），差异均无统计学意义。单因素分析影响预后的因素包括:男性、城市来源、LVEF、分次PCI是保护性因素；高脂血症、脑梗病史、病变血管数目、安放支架数目、最大狭窄率、醛固酮受体拮抗剂是危险性因素，利用可能影响患者预后的因素作为因子多元逐步Cox比例风险回归模型模型分析结果是替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷HR=1.118，95%可信区间0.755~1.656，P>0.05。结论 替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷用于ACS择期PCI术后患者的疗效和安全性相当。
|
| 关 键 词： | 替格瑞洛 氯吡格雷 急性冠脉综合征 经皮冠状动脉介入治疗 |
| 收稿时间： | 2016-12-20 |
Efficacy of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome after elective percutaneous coronary intervention |
| |
| Abstract: | AIM To investigate the differences in clinical application of tigrelor and clopidogrel and to explore the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS 2 276 cardiovascular patients in Xijing Hospital were selected from which 1159 were diagnosed as ACS and undergoing PCI. The patients were divided into ticagrelor group and clopidogrel group. Baseline data, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke) and major bleeding events (TypeⅡ, TypeⅢ and TypeⅤ set by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS Higher TNI, lower EF value, more stent numbers, maximal stenosis rate, more multiple complex lesions, fewer transradial approach, and more multiple PCI were observed in ticagrelor group (P<0.05). Between the two groups, there was no statistically significant difference in MACE events (15.18% vs. 12.59%, HR=1.226, 95% confidence interval 0.867-1.735, P=0.249) and in serious bleeding events (0.66%: 0.73%, HR=1.093, 95% confidence interval 0.212-5.634, P=1). CONCLUSION Clinicians commonly to use ticagrelor for severe ACS cases even though clinically there is no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel for post-PCI ACS patients. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《心脏杂志》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《心脏杂志》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
