药物洗脱支架置人术后断裂导致支架内再狭窄的临床分析

目的 探讨药物洗脱支架(DES)置入术后支架断裂与再狭窄的关系及支架断裂的特点.方法 回顾性分析冠状动脉支架置人术后行冠状动脉造影复查的536例患者,实验分为DES组(N=397)和裸金属支架(BMS)组(n=139).分析支架置入术前、术后及复查时的冠状动脉造影图像,找出支架内再狭窄和支架断裂的病例,分析支架断裂和再狭窄的关系以及支架断裂的病变特征及形态特征.结果 DES组和BMS组再狭窄分别为31例和30例(P＜0.01),其中5例发生支架断裂,断裂的支架均为DES,BMS组未见支架断裂,两组差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).发生支架断裂的5例靶病变均为扭曲病变,支架断裂均发生在血管扭曲成角处.结论 支架断裂是DES置入术后发生再狭窄的原因之一,扭曲病变置入长的DES后可能容易发生支架断裂.     

支架内再狭窄病变再次介入治疗后造影复查结果分析

目的:评价支架内再狭窄(ISR)病变再次行介入治疗后的造影复查结果,试图寻找合适的治疗方法。方法:行冠状动脉再狭窄病变介入治疗后进行冠状动脉造影复查的患者58例,分析其临床资料及冠状动脉造影图像。根据再次介入治疗方法不同分为置入药物支架(DES)和非DES治疗(包括单纯球囊扩张、双导丝球囊或切割球囊扩张、放射治疗和裸支架置入)组,分析再狭窄率及主要心血管不良事件(MACE)发生情况。结果:共涉及58处ISR病变,前降支病变占56.90%;70.69%为裸支架的ISR病变;32.76%的病变为支架内局限性狭窄,支架内弥漫性狭窄病变占18.97%,10.24%为支架完全闭塞病变;其中50%的ISR患者接受了病变处DES治疗,20.69%接受了单纯的普通球囊扩张;复查造影时间为平均(13.12±8.03)个月;ISR病变DES组发生病变处再狭窄和发生MACE情况明显低于接受其他治疗组(再狭窄发生率17.24%:51.72%,P<0.05;MACE发生率20.69%:51.72%,P<0.05);对有可能影响ISR病变介入治疗后再次发生ISR的各种因素进行Logistic分析可见,再次治疗的方法是再次发生ISR的独立危险因素。结论:对于ISR病变置入DES近中期效果明显优于其他介入治疗方法。     

药物洗脱支架再狭窄特点及相关因素分析

目的分析药物洗脱支架(DES)再狭窄的特点及可能的相关危险因素。方法回顾性分析2006年1月1日至2012年5月1日于北京大学人民医院行冠状动脉造影复查的病例,将符合要求的病例分为支架再狭窄组217例、非支架再狭窄组420例,分析DES再狭窄的特点及可能的相关危险因素。结果糖尿病、较小的血管直径、重叠置入支架、分叉病变、钙化病变、开口病变、支架断裂与DES再狭窄相关,DES再狭窄多为局限性再狭窄,但是前降支开口病变多表现为弥漫增生性再狭窄。结论糖尿病、较小的血管直径、重叠置入支架、分叉病变、钙化病变、开口病变与支架断裂是DES再狭窄的危险因素。前降支开口病变置入DES后的再狭窄类型多为弥漫增生性,与其他类型病变不同。     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉小血管病变的疗效分析

目的通过分析比较裸金属支架(BMS)与药物洗脱支架[DES,包括雷帕霉素(Cypher)支架和紫杉醇(TAXUS)支架]治疗冠状动脉小血管病变疗效的差异,为DES治疗多支及单支小血管病变冠心病提供依据。方法连续入选2002年12月至2005年5月沈阳军区总医院首次接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)、靶血管为小血管病变且达到完全血运重建的486例患者,其中多支小血管病变(多支)150例。分为BMS组214例(多支63例)、Cypher组140例(多支46例)和TAXUS组132例(多支41例),对比分析各组患者住院期间及随访6个月的临床情况。结果3组患者冠脉病变特点、PCI成功率及住院期间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率等指标差异均无显著性(P>0·05)。冠脉造影随访显示,两个DES组再狭窄率均明显低于BMS(Cypher组4·9%,TAXUS组7·5%对BMS组29·2%,P<0·05),随访期间MACE发生率亦明显低于BMS(Cypher组2·9%,TAXUS组3·9%对BMS组12·0%,P<0·01)。进一步分析多支小血管病例,发现两个DES组的再狭窄率及随访期间MACE发生率仍然明显低于BMS组(再狭窄率Cypher组6·7%,TAXUS组7·1%对BMS组37·5%,P<0·05;MACE发生率Cypher组4·1%,TAXUS组4·8%对BMS组21·0%,P<0·05)。结论Cypher和TAXUS支架治疗小血管病变安全可行,疗效显著,治疗多支小血管病变可得到相同的疗效。     

85岁及以上老年冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉支架治疗的临床观察

目的 探讨85～94岁冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉支架治疗的疗效和预后.方法 回顾性分析90例85岁以上冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉支架治疗的临床和造影特点、住院期间和长期疗效.结果 90例中,21例应用金属裸支架(BMS),69例应用药物洗脱支架(DES).三支病变41例,2支病变21例,单支病变28例.手术成功率为94.4%,术前与术后TIMI-3级血流比例分别为72.2%和94.4%.手术相关并发症为15.6%,主要为冠脉夹层(11.1%).住院期间主要心血管不良事件(MACE)为7.8%,其中DES组住院期间MACE为5.8%,BMS组为14.3%.DES组出现2例严重出血.86例患者随访1年时,总的MACE为4.6%,其中DES组为6.0%,BMS组没有任何MACE.DES组出现]例脑卒中和1例严重出血.47例患者随访2年时,总的MACE为14.9%,其中DES组MACE为19.4%,BMS组无任何MACE.DES组1例发生严重出血,BMS组1例发生脑卒中.多因素COX回归分析表明,肌酐水平和高血压是影响长期预后的重要因素.结论 85岁以上冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉支架治疗手术成功牢较高,住院期间和长期的MACE事件发生率较低,并存高血压和严重.肾功能不全的患者MACE的发生率相对较高.     

急诊PCI植入药物支架与金属裸支架治疗急性心肌梗死的对比研究

目的 比较急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗植入药物支架(drug eluting stent,DES)和金属裸支架(baremetal stent.BMS)对急性心肌梗死(acute myocardial infarction,AMI)的疗效及安全性.方法 对136例发病在12 h内或发病超过12 h但仍有胸痛的AMI患者进行急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗,植入BMS或DES.观察手术成功率、住院及随访期间主要心血管事件.结果 136例患者中植入BMS 72例,植入DES 64例,DES组所植入支架的直径明显小于BMS组,而长度则大于BMS组.两组手术成功率、住院期间主要心血管事件发生率、支架内亚急性血栓形成率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).随访期间BMS组总主要心血管事件发生率、支架内再狭窄及靶病变冉血管化明显多于DES组,而心绞痛复发、再发心肌梗死、心功能恶化及心脏性死亡等方面比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗植入BMS和DES均具有较好的成功率和安全性,与BMS相比,DES可降低远期靶血管再狭窄和再次血运重建的发生率.     

雷帕霉素洗脱支架治疗冠脉左前降支近中段病变的临床疗效评价

目的评价雷帕霉素洗脱支架治疗冠脉左前降支近中段病变的临床疗效。方法以冠脉造影显示左前降支近中段狭窄病变并分别置入雷帕霉素洗脱支架(SES组)或裸金属支架(BMS组)的患者各100例为研究对象。记录患者的一般情况、临床和冠脉病变特征,术后1年临床随访和冠脉造影复查。结果两组患者匹配良好,仅SES组置入支架的长度显著长于BMS组(21.07±7.45mmvs18.25±6.82mm,P=0.0057)。在随访中,无心源性死亡,SES组1例因支架内再狭窄发生急性心肌梗死。冠脉造影复查显示SES组再狭窄率较BMS组显著降低(7.4%vs25.9%,P=0.002),并直接导致不良事件发生率的下降。结论药物洗脱支架显著降低左前降支近中段狭窄病变介入治疗后再狭窄发生率,可作为血运重建的一种有效策略。     

药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗弥漫病变的比较研究

目的比较冠心病患者弥漫病变采用药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗的近期和远期预后,分析影响这类病变介入治疗预后的危险因素。方法研究对象为我院2004年4月至2005年8月接受置入单个长度>25.0mm支架治疗并且进行冠状动脉造影随访的205例患者,排除支架置入失败及支架置入位置不理想者。分为置入药物洗脱支架(DES)组(n=128)和置入金属裸支架(BMS)组(n=77)。所有的患者术后均接受阿司匹林300mg、氯吡格雷75mg等规范药物治疗。手术成功判定标准为至少用相互垂直的两个投照体位行冠状动脉造影,肉眼判定残余狭窄<20%和前向血流TIMI3级。再狭窄判定标准以复查冠状动脉造影定量分析支架内或支架邻近血管管腔直径狭窄程度≥50%。患者在支架术后6个月左右接受冠状动脉造影随访。结果共205例患者(男性181例,女性24例)227个靶病变置入382枚支架完成造影随访。其中C型病变占总数的93.8%,B2型病变为6.2%。双支或双支以上血管病变的患者比例达到86.8%。平均术前参考血管直径(2.88±0.43)mm。平均每个病变支架长度(40.09±12.94)mm,54.2%的病变接受了重叠置入支架。比较置入DES组和置入BMS组,两组的患者基本条件差异无统计学意义,在病变基本条件方面,DES组术前参考血管直径明显小于BMS组[(2.80±0.37)mm比(3.10±0.48)mm,P=0.005]。6个月随访结果显示再狭窄率DES组(15.4%)小于BMS组(48.4%),P<0.001。晚期支架内腔径丢失BMS组明显大于DES组[(0.94±0.76)mm比(0.39±0.53)mm,P<0.001]。靶病变血管重建率DES要明显好于BMS(11.6%比38.5%,P<0.001)。支架内再狭窄在置入DES组的局限性再狭窄比例大于置入BMS组(33.3%比18.2%,P=0.029)。对影响复杂弥漫病变支架再狭窄因素的多元logistic回归分析发现,采用支架重叠置入(OR=2.82,P=0.017)和支架类型(OR=5.71,P<0.001)是对复杂弥漫病变支架内再狭窄影响最大的危险因素。结论我们的研究发现对于复杂弥漫病变的治疗,药物洗脱支架有着良好的治疗效果,较金属裸支架能明显减低再狭窄率。对于弥漫病变,我们应该使用长支架,尽可能减少支架重叠置入的数量。     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉小血管病变的疗效分析

目的 通过分析比较裸金属支架（BMS）与药物洗脱支架[DES，包括雷帕霉素（Cypher）支架和紫杉醇（TAXUS）支架]治疗冠状动脉小血管病变疗效的差异，为DES治疗多支及单支小血管病变冠心病提供依据。方法连续入选2002年12月至2005年5月沈阳军区总医院首次接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）、靶血管为小血管病变且达到完全血运重建的486例患者，其中多支小血管病变（多支）150例。分为BMS组214例（多支63例）、Cypher组140例（多支46例）和TAXUS组132例（多支41例），对比分析各组患者住院期间及随访6个月的临床情况。结果3组患者冠脉病变特点、PCI成功率及住院期间主要不良心脏事件（MACE）发生率等指标差异均无显著性（P〉0．05）。冠脉造影随访显示，两个DES组再狭窄率均明显低于BMS（Cypher组4．9％，TAXUS组7．5％对BMS组29．2％，P〈0．05），随访期间MACE发生率亦明显低于BMS（Cypher组2．9％，TAXUS组3．9％对BMS组12、0％，P〈0．01）。进一步分析多支小血管病例，发现两个DES组的再狭窄率及随访期间MACE发生率仍然明显低于BMS组（再狭窄率Cypher组6．7％，TAXUS组7．1％对BMS组37．5％，P〈0．05；MACE发生率Cypher组4、1％。TAXUS组4．8％对BMS组21．O％，P〈0．05）。结论Cypher和TAXUS支架治疗小血管病变安全可行，疗效显著，治疗多支小血管病变可得到相同的疗效。     

国产药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉多支病变临床随访

目的:评价冠状动脉多支病变患者置入≥4枚国产药物洗脱支架(DES)的疗效.方法:2004-11至2006-11就诊于我科接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的冠心病患者1 127例,其中185例为置入支架≥4枚的多支病变患者,随访院内外主要心脏不良事件(MACE)包括心性死亡、急性心肌梗死和靶病变再次血运重建的发生率.结果:处理冠状动脉病变720处,其中复杂病变525处,置入国产DES 836枚.院内1例高龄患者术后常规抗凝治疗死于脑出血,其余184例临床随访42(30～54)个月,发生急性心肌梗死4例,靶病变再次血运重建12例,院外MACE发生率8.6%.冠状动脉造影随访108例,DES边缘再狭窄5例,支架内再狭窄9例,再狭窄率13.0%.结论:冠状动脉多支病变患者置入≥14枚国产DES长期随访效果满意.     

Early outcome of treatment of ostial de novo left anterior descending coronary artery lesions with drug-eluting stents

We investigated early and mid-term clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients who had de novo ostial left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) lesions that were treated with drug-eluting stents (DESs) or bare metal stents (BMSs). We identified 43 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous intervention for isolated de novo ostial LAD lesions with implantation of DESs and compared them with 43 patients who had similar lesions that were treated with BMSs. All stents were successfully implanted. There were no significant differences with respect to major in-hospital complications between the 2 groups. One patient in the BMS group died during hospitalization. Non-Q-wave myocardial infarction occurred in 2 patients (4.7%) in the DES and in 1 patient (2.3%) in the BMS group. At 9-month follow-up, 3 patients (7%) in the DES group and 11 (25.6%) in the BMS group underwent target lesion revascularization (p = 0.038); major adverse cardiac events were less frequent in the DES than in the BMS group (9.3% vs 32.6%, p = 0.015). Angiographic follow-up was available in 82% of patients in the DES group and 75% of those in the BMS group (p = 0.6) and showed lower binary restenotic rates (5.7% vs 31.3%, p = 0.01) and smaller late loss (0.30 +/- 0.81 vs 1.23 +/- 0.93 mm, p = 0.0001) in the DES group. In conclusion, DES implantation in de novo ostial LAD lesions appears safe and effective and is associated with a significant decrease in restenotic rates compared with historical experience with BMSs.     

Immediate procedural and long-term clinical outcomes following drug-eluting stent implantation to ostial saphenous vein graft lesions

BACKGROUND: Ostial saphenous vein graft (OSVG) lesions were excluded from all the clinical trials demonstrating significantly lower restenosis rates with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DES in OSVG lesions by assessing angiographic and 12-month clinical outcomes. METHODS: 70 consecutive patients (70 OSVG lesions) underwent coronary stent implantation between May 2003 and April 2006: 37 lesions received DES and 33 lesions BMS. Endpoints were all cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), examined separately and as a combined end-point (major adverse cardiac events, MACE). RESULTS: Procedural (94.6% for DES and 87.9% for BMS) and angiographic (100% for DES and 100% for BMS) success did not differ between the two groups. The only in-hospital events were non-Q wave MI (DES 8.1% versus BMS 12.1%, P=0.69). At 30-day follow-up, there were no other events. Overall, at 1-year follow-up, the BMS group had a higher TLR (30.3% versus 5.4%, P=0.015), TVR (33.3% versus 10.8%, P=0.045) and MACE rate (36.4% versus 10.8%, P=0.024) compared to the DES group. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-eluting stent implantation to OSVG lesions achieves better clinical results than BMS but is still associated with a relatively high incidence (10.8%) of revascularization at 1-year follow-up.     

Treatment of saphenous vein graft lesions with drug-eluting stents: immediate and midterm outcome

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present report was to evaluate clinical and angiographic outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions. BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of DES implantation for the treatment SVG lesions remains uncertain. METHODS: We evaluated in-hospital and six-month outcomes in 61 consecutive patients treated with DES in SVG lesions from March 2002 to March 2004 (DES group), as compared to 89 consecutive patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) in the 24 months immediately before the introduction of DES (BMS group). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were recorded in-hospital and at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: The rate of in-hospital MACE was similar between the two groups (6.6% vs. 5.6%, p = 1.0). Cumulative MACE at six months was 11.5% in the DES group and 28.1% in the BMS group (p = 0.02). The DES group had a significantly lower incidence of in-segment restenosis (10.0% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.03), TLR (3.3% vs. 19.8%, p = 0.003), and TVR (4.9% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.003). By Cox regression analysis, diabetes (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33 to 6.90; p = 0.008), usage of BMS (HR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.07 to 5.97; p = 0.03), and age of SVG (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.19; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of MACE at six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to BMS implantation, DES implantation in SVG lesions appears safe with favorable and improved mid-term outcomes.     

Drug-eluting stents in the treatment of intermediate lesions: pooled analysis from four randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: To address the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of intermediate lesions, we performed a pooled analysis of four randomized DES versus bare-metal stent (BMS) trials and assessed outcomes among patients with intermediate lesions. BACKGROUND: Before the introduction of DES, intermediate coronary lesions were commonly managed based on physiologic or anatomic assessment of lesion severity. The DES may challenge this paradigm. METHODS: The study population involved 167 of 2,478 randomized patients (6.7%) with intermediate lesions (diameter stenosis <50% [mean 44%] by quantitative coronary angiography) from the Sirolimus-coated Bx Velocity Balloon Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients with De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions (SIRIUS), TAXUS-IV, and the First and Second First Use to Underscore Restenosis Reduction with Everolimus (FUTURE-I and -II) trials. End points examined included early (in-hospital and 30-day) and late (1-year) major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, and follow-up angiographic restenosis. RESULTS: Patients with intermediate lesions randomized to DES versus BMS had low rates of 30-day MACE (1.1% vs. 4.0% respectively; p = 0.22). At one-year follow-up, patients treated with DES versus BMS had similar rates of cardiac death (0% vs. 2.7%, respectively; p = 0.11) and MI (3.4% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.49) but markedly lower rates of TVR (3.4% vs. 20.3%; p = 0.0004), MACE (5.6% vs. 25.4%; p = 0.0003), and binary angiographic restenosis (1.8% vs. 34.0%; p < 0.0001). No patient in either group developed stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMS, treatment of intermediate lesions with DES appears safe and results in a marked reduction in clinical and angiographic restenosis. The efficacy of DES may require a reevaluation of current treatment paradigms for intermediate lesions.     

药物洗脱支架对完全闭塞性病变介入治疗预后影响的评估

目的比较对于完全性闭塞病变采用药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架的近期和远期预后。方法选择我院近期连续接受置入药物洗脱支架(DES)或金属裸支架(BMS)治疗,并且进行冠状动脉造影随访的155例存在完全闭塞病变的冠心病患者。患者在支架术后6个月左右接受冠状动脉造影随访。结果共155例患者(138名男性,17名女性)159处靶病变置入232枚支架完成造影随访,其中慢性完全性闭塞65例,占41.9%。其中C型病变占总数的85.4%。在患者基本条件方面,DES组2型糖尿病比例要多于BMS组(33.8%比18.5%,P=0.030)。在病变基本条件方面,DES组和BMS组C型病变分别占89.6%和72.0%(P=0.005),DES组病变更为复杂。DES组慢性完全闭塞病变比例明显高于BMS组(60.3%比24.4%,P<0.001)。DES组和BMS组的支架长度和病变长度没有差别。DES组参考血管直径小于BMS组[(2.72±0.36)mm比(2.96±0.52)mm,P=0.001]。6个月随访结果显示支架再狭窄DES组明显低于BMS组(15.6%比41.5%,P<0.001)。DES组支架再狭窄更多为局限性(58.3%比17.6%,P<0.001)。DES组的靶病变血管重建率明显低于BMS组(5.8%比19.9%,P=0.001)。病变内晚期腔径丢失DES明显小于BMS[(0.36±0.63)mm比(1.04±0.70)mm,P<0.001]。晚期支架内血栓DES有2例,BMS为0。DES组有1例死亡。术后主要心脏不良事件发生率两组分别是1.4%和11.1%,DES组显著低于BMS组(P=0.032)。结论我们的研究发现对于完全闭塞性病变的治疗,DES有着良好的治疗效果,比BMS有着明显减低的再狭窄率、靶病变血管重建率,并且在随访期间患者有着更少的心血管事件。     

Clinical and angiographic outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in aorto-ostial lesions.

OBJECTIVES: This observational study evaluated the clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients with aorto-ostial coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) or with bare metal stents (BMSs). BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of SESs for the treatment of aorto-ostial lesions have not been demonstrated. METHODS: We identified 82 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions in 82 aorto-ostial lesions using the SES (32 patients) or BMS (50 patients) and compared the two groups of patients. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death or Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were recorded in-hospital and at a 10-month follow-up. RESULTS: All stents were implanted successfully. There were no statistically significant differences regarding major in-hospital complications between the two groups. At 10-month follow-up, two (6.3%) patients in the SES group and 14 (28%) patients in the BMS group underwent TLR (p = 0.01); MACE were less frequent in the SES group compared to the BMS group (19% vs. 44%, p = 0.02). Angiographic follow-up showed lower binary restenosis rates (11% vs. 51%, p = 0.001) and smaller late loss (0.21 +/- 0.31 mm vs. 2.06 +/- 1.37 mm, p < 0.0001) in the SES group. CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of our study is that, compared to the BMS, implantation of the SES in aorto-ostial lesions appears safe and effective, with no increase in major in-hospital complications and a significant improvement in restenosis and late event rates at 10-month follow-up.     

Effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of ostial left anterior descending artery stenosis with intravascular ultrasound guidance

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate the clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for ostial left anterior descending (LAD) lesions compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation. BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of SES implantation for ostial LAD lesions is currently unknown. METHODS: Sirolimus-eluting stents were implanted in 68 consecutive patients with ostial LAD stenoses. The control group was composed of 77 patients treated with BMS during the preceding two years. In the SES group, for complete lesion coverage, stent positioning was intentionally extended into the distal left main coronary artery (LMCA) in 23 patients (34%) with intermediate LMCA narrowing. RESULTS: Compared with the BMS group, the SES group had more multivessel involvement, received fewer debulking atherectomies, underwent more direct stenting, had a greater number of stents, and had more segments stented. The procedural success rate was 100% in both groups. The six-month angiographic restenosis rate was significantly lower in the SES group than in the BMS group (5.1% vs. 32.3%, p < 0.001). During the one-year follow-up period, neither death nor myocardial infarction occurred in either group, but target lesion revascularization was less frequent in the SES group than in the BMS group (0% vs. 17%, p < 0.001). In the SES group, there were no restenoses in cases with LMCA coverage, compared with three restenoses (7.9%) in cases with precise stent positioning (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in ostial LAD lesions achieved excellent results regarding restenosis and clinical outcomes compared with BMS implantation. This finding may be associated with reduced neointimal hyperplasia and complete lesion coverage.     

药物洗脱支架精确定位与贯穿左冠状动脉主干治疗冠状动脉前降支口部病变的对照研究

目的 比较药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗前降支(LAD)开口病变精确定位法和贯穿左冠状动脉主干(LM)法的优劣.方法 回顾性分析2004年4月至2006年5月北京阜外心血管病医院对LAD开口病变用DES行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的224例患者,其中精确定位有161例(P组),贯穿入LM有63例(C组).结果 基线上C组的参考血管直径(RVD)明显大于P组,而LM和LAD管腔的落差P组明显大于C组.在介入操作特点上,支架直径、球囊后扩张的比率、后扩张球囊直径和左主干分叉处行双球囊对吻技术(kissing balloon)的比率C组均明显大于P组.两组介入成功率均为100%.两组主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率差异无统计学意义(4.3%比1.6%;P=0.447),其中死亡、急性心肌梗死、靶血管重建两组差异也无统计学意义(0比0,P=1.000;1.2%比1.6%,P=1.000和3.1%比0,P=0.325).只有1例亚急性血栓发生在P组.造影随访C组支架内和血管段再狭窄率有降低的趋势(7.7%比0,P=0.316;10.8%比3.8%,P=0.431).支架内和血管段的晚期丢失C组均明显小于P组[(0.12±0.08)mm比(0.59±0.37)mm,P=0.000和(0.17±0.09)mm比(0.64±0.49)mm,P=0.000].结论 DES治疗LAD口部病变贯穿LM法和精确定位法均可显示较好的有效性和安全性.与精确定位法相比,贯穿LM法有更强的可操作性和降低再狭窄的趋势.     

国产西罗莫司洗脱支架与裸支架治疗急性心肌梗死临床疗效的比较

目的探讨国产西罗莫司洗脱支架与裸支架治疗急性心肌梗死（AMI）临床疗效的差异。方法173例连续行直接PCI的AMI患者随机分为西罗莫司洗脱支架组（87例）和裸支架组（86例）,分析住院期间和支架置入后6个月的支架内血栓、主要心血管事件（包括再次心肌梗死、缺血性靶血管重建和死亡）发生率及6个月再狭窄率。结果两组患者在术后血管通畅、肌酸激酶峰值、心功能和住院期间心脏事件方面差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组各有2例支架内血栓（2．4％比2．3％,P〉0．05）。6个月时,国产西罗莫司洗脱支架组的支架内再狭窄率（4．5％比40．0％,P〈0．01）、节段内再狭窄率（6．8％比44．9％,P〈0．01）和主要不良心脏事件发生率（8．0％比24．4％,P〈0．01）显著低于裸支架组。国产西罗莫司洗脱支架组主要心脏事件的减少主要是因为缺血性靶血管重建减少所致（3．4％比11．6％,P〈0．05）。结论与裸支架相比,国产西罗莫司洗脱支架治疗AMI患者并未增加6个月内支架内血栓的发生,而显著降低6个月的再狭窄率和主要心脏事件发生率。