| 氮氧化钛生物有效性支架与雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架临床应用的比较 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 张孝忠,张晋,张军,王红,原新茹. 氮氧化钛生物有效性支架与雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架临床应用的比较[J]. 心脏杂志, 2010, 22(3): 393-395 |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 张孝忠 张晋 张军 王红 原新茹 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 解放军军事医学科学院 307医院心脏内科，北京 100071 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目的:对比氮氧化钛生物有效性支架(Titan2-BAS)与雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架(sirolimus-eluting stent,SES)在冠状动脉血运重建方面的临床疗效。方法:冠心病患者141例,根据植入的支架不同分为A组(Titan2-BAS)87例,B组(SES)54例,A组病变内径(3.1±0.4)mm,长度(24±3)mm,B组病变内径(3.0±0.5)mm,长度(22±4)mm,两组无显著差异。均采用经桡动脉或尺动脉途径冠脉血运重建。A组阿司匹林与氯吡格雷治疗1~3月,B组至少12月。计算A,B两组支架病变的通过率、早期支架内血栓发生率及随访MACE发生率(指死亡、急性心肌梗死、靶血管重建等)。结果:A组146处75%狭窄病变共植入Titan2-BAS 168枚,1枚支架未能通过病变(RCA),通过率99.3%;B组86处病变共植入SES94枚,通过率100%,两组无显著差异。随访1~17(平均5.8)月。两组均无死亡病例;A组无急、晚期血栓。B组1例术后2 d出现支架内血栓;A组1例术后3月行靶血管重建,B组无靶血管重建;两组MACE发生率无显著差异。结论:Titan2-BAS与SES在冠脉血运重建方面的近期及远期疗效相近,Titan2不增加MACE发生率。
|
| 关 键 词： | 冠脉血运重建 氮氧化钛生物有效性支架 雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架 |
| 收稿时间： | 2008-09-12 |
Comparison between titanium nitric oxide biological active stent and sirolimus-eluting stent in clinical practice |
| |
| Abstract: | AIM: To compare the clinical efficacy of titanium nitric oxide biologically active stents (Titan2-BAS) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in coronary revascularization. METHODS: One hundred and forty one patients with coronary artery disease were enrolled. Eighty seven patients were enrolled in group A treated with titanium nitric oxide biological active stents, whereas the other 54 patients were enrolled in group B treated with sirolimus-eluting stents. The reference vessel diameter was (3.1±0.4) mm and lesion length was (24±3) mm in group A, whereas diameters and length were (3.0±0.5) mm and (22±4) mm long, respectively, in group B with no significant difference between groups. All stents were implanted through either radial or ulnar artery approach. Patients in group A were given aspirin and clopidogrel for 1 to 3 months, whereas patients in group B used these for at least 12 months. The stent delivery success rate, incidence of early in-stent thrombosis and MACE (death, acute myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) were analyzed in both groups during follow-up. RESULTS: In group A, 168 Titan2-BAS were implanted in 147 lesions with stenosis >75%. One stent failed to cross the lesion, the delivery success rate being 99.3%. In group B, 94 units of SES were implanted in 86 lesions, the delivery success rate being 100%. No significant difference was observed between groups. Follow-up period ranged from 1 to 17 months, with an average of 5.8 months. No deaths were found in both groups. There was no acute or late in-stent thrombosis in group A but one patient in group B suffered from in-stent thrombosis 2 days after the procedure. One patient underwent revascularization 3 months after the procedure in group A and no revascularizations were done in group B. No significant difference on MACE was found between groups. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that Titan2-BAS is as good as SES in short- and long-term efficacy in coronary revascularization. Application of Titan2-BAS will not increase MACE. |
| |
| 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 |
|
