药物洗脱支架内再狭窄的危险因素分析

目的 探讨冠状动脉药物洗脱支架内再狭窄的危险因素.方法 对157例行冠状动脉药物洗脱支架植入术患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,按照冠状动脉造影结果分为再狭窄组33例和无再狭窄组124例,采用单因素及Logistic多因素回归分析其临床及冠状动脉造影特征与药物洗脱支架内再狭窄的相关性.结果 再狭窄组33例,糖尿病18例(54.5%),术后反复心绞痛26例(78.8%);无再狭窄组124例,糖尿病31例(25.0%),术后反复心绞痛72例(58.1%),组间差异有统计学意义(χ2=10.60,P＜0.01;χ2=4.77,P=0.03).2组慢性完全闭塞分别为11例(19.3%)、12例(7.6%),分叉病变12例(21.1%)、16例(10.2%),弥漫病变15例(26.3%)、19例(12.1%),组间差异有统计学意义(χ2值分别为5.92、4.34、6.32,P均＜0.05).再狭窄组植入支架57枚,无再狭窄组植入157枚.Logistic多因素分析显示糖尿病、术后反复心绞痛、慢性完全闭塞、分叉病变、弥漫病变和支架长度与支架内再狭窄相关(OR分别为3.52、2.59、3.05、3.14、3.08、0.93,95%CI分别为1.56～7.90,1.02～6.59,1.11～8.36,1.30～7.59,1.34～7.05,0.88～0.98,P均＜0.05).结论 冠状动脉药物洗脱支架植入术后,糖尿病史、术后反复发生心绞痛、慢性完全闭塞、分叉病变、弥漫病变及支架长度为支架内再狭窄的危险因素.

Abstract：

Objective To investigate the risk factors of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after coronary implantation of drug-eluting stent Methods One hundred and fifty-seven patients including 118 males and 39 females,who underwent successful implantation of drug-eluting stent, were recruited in the study. The patients were divided into the restenosis group (33 patients) and non-restenosis group ( 124 patients) according to the angiographic results. The associations of ISR with clinical and coronary angiographic characteristics were analyzed using univiriate analysis and logistic regression. Results In the restenosis group,there were 18 cases of diabetes mellitus ( 54. 5% ), 26 cases of frequency angina ( 78. 8% ), which were significantly higher than those of 31 cases of diabetes (25.0%) and 72 case of frequent angina (58. 1% ) in the non-restenosis group (χ2 = 10. 60, P ＜ 0. 01, χ2 = 4. 77, P = 0. 03 for diabetes mellitus and frequent angina, respectively). Compared to non-restenosis group, the occurrence rates of chronic total occasion, bifurcatus lesions, diffuse lesions were significandy higher in the restenosis group ( 19. 3% vs 7. 6% χ2 =5.92,21.1% vs 10. 2% χ2 =4. 34,26. 3%vs 12. 1% χ2 =6. 32,Ps ＜0. 05). Fifty-seven stents were implanted into the restenosis group,and one hundred and fifty-seven into the non-restenosis group. Logistic regression analysis showed that diabetes, frequent angina,chronic total occlusion lesions, bifurcatus lesions, diffuse lesions, stent length and diameter were significantly associated with restenosis ( OR value were 3.52,2. 59,3.05,3. 14,3.08,0. 93,95% CI were 1.56 - 7.90,1.02 - 6. 59,1.11 - 8. 36,1.30 - 7.59,1.34 - 7.05,0. 88 - 0. 98 respectively, Ps ＜ 0. 05 ). Conclusion After implantation of drug-eluting stent, diabetes mellitus, chronic total occasion lesions, frequent angina, diffuse lesions, bifurcatus lesions and stent length and diameter are associated with follow-up restenosis.     

药物洗脱支架术后双联抗血小板药物应用二年与一年的比较

目的对比置入药物洗脱支架（DES）后双联抗血小板治疗2年相比1年能否降低主要不良心血管事件。方法入选2006年1月至2007年12月行DES的患者221例,按照双联抗血小板治疗1年和2年分为2组,初级终点为主要不良心皿管事件（心源性死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、靶血管再次血运重建的联合终点）。结果截止至2009年12月的随访结果显示服用氯吡格雷1年组和2年组的主要不良心血管事件发牛率分别为4．3％和4．7％,P=0．80。结论置入DES术后延长双联抗血小板治疗时间至2年相比1年并未降低主要不良心血管事件。     

Biodegradable-Polymer Versus Polymer-Free Drug-Eluting Stents for the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease

Background/purposeBiodegradable-polymer (BP) and polymer-free (PF) drug eluting stents (DES) were developed to reduce the risk of delayed arterial healing observed with durable-polymer (DP) platforms. Although trials demonstrate BP-DES and PF-DES are non-inferior to DP-DES, there is limited data directly comparing these technologies. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of BP-DES versus PF-DES for the treatment of coronary artery disease.Methods/materialsElectronic searches were performed identifying randomized trials comparing BP-DES with PF-DES. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and angiographic in-stent late lumen loss (LLL). Co-secondary safety endpoints were all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST).ResultsOf 208 studies, 5 met inclusion criteria including 1975 patients. At mean follow-up (14 ± 5 months), BP-DES were associated with significantly reduced rates of TVR (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.37–0.92, p = 0.02), TLR (4.7% vs 9.5%) (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.31–0.75, p = 0.001) and in-stent LLL (pooled mean difference ?0.20 mm, 95%CI ?0.24 to ?0.16, p < 0.001). There was no difference in safety, including all-cause death (OR 1.24, 95%CI 0.68–2.28, p = 0.48), MI (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.54–1.56, p = 0.75) or ST (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.67–3.73, p = 0.30).ConclusionsThese data suggests that BP-DES are more efficacious when compared with PF-DES for the treatment of CAD.     

冠脉介入革命—生物可吸收支架的研究进展及展望

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗已被确立为治疗冠状动脉疾病的最有效策略之一。 近年来,生物可吸收性血管支架已经应用于冠心病患者的治疗,它提供了一个非常有前途的前景。然而,其与金属支架的性能仍然存在争议。本文旨在对生物可吸收冠脉支架研究进展及展望进行综述。     

冠状动脉支架植入术后再狭窄与临床血清学指标的关系探讨

目的探讨冠状动脉内药物涂层支架置入术后支架内再狭窄与临床血清学指标的关系。方法214例冠状动脉内药物涂层支架置入术后患者因胸痛再发或常规行冠脉造影随访,以原靶病变管腔直径狭窄≥50%为支架内再狭窄,比较与无狭窄患者的临床血清学指标。结果214例患者共278处病变置入药物涂层支架,支架内再狭窄发生90例(110处病变)。再狭窄占42.1%,与无再狭窄组比较,血脂蛋白a、直接胆红素、谷丙转氨酶、谷草转氨酶、胆碱酯酶、纤维蛋白原等无显著统计学差异;再狭窄组患者血LDL/HDL、总胆汁酸、尿酸、碱性磷酸酶和γ-谷氨酰转移酶水平高于无再狭窄组,总胆红素低于无再狭窄组,均有显著统计学意义(P<0.05)。logistic多因素回归分析结果显示,糖尿病(OR=1.038)、高LDL/HDL(OR=1.542)、高胆汁酸(OR=1.197)、高尿酸(OR=1.113)、长病变(OR=1.331)是再狭窄的危险因素(P<0.05),而高总胆红素(OR=0.891)是再狭窄的保护因素(P<0.05)。结论血总胆红素、总胆汁酸、尿酸、LDL/HDL等临床血清学指标与药物涂层支架术后支架内再狭窄密切相关。     

药物涂层支架对冠心病合并糖尿病患者的临床效果

近几年药物涂层支架（DES）在冠心病的介入治疗中得到了广泛的临床应用,特别是在对合并糖尿病的冠心病治疗中得到了迅猛的发展。2006年巴塞罗那ES上ASKET和BASKET—LATE以后的SCAAR研究结果对DES的临床给予了沉重的打击,而1年后维也纳的SCAAR研究对DES的临床疗效给了一个较好的评价,同时STRATECY研究也对抗血小板治疗联合DES给予了肯定。     

Late stent malapposition with marked positive vascular remodeling observed only at the site of drug-eluting stents after multivessel coronary stenting

A 74-year-old woman presented with effort-induced chest pain. Diagnostic coronary angiography revealed three-vessel disease. A successful angioplasty was performed with two sirolimus-eluting stents placed in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and left circumflex artery (LCX). The right coronary artery (RCA) was treated with a bare-metal stent. Follow-up angiography and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) assessment were performed 8 months later, which showed late stent malapposition (LSM) with marked positive vascular remodeling around the drug-eluting stents (DES) in both LAD and LCX lesions, but there was no evidence of ectatic area around the BMS in the RCA lesion. Compared with the baseline IVUS, a significant increase in external elastic membrane (EEM) cross-sectional area was found. Twenty-seven months later, we performed repeat follow-up angiography. Intravascular ultrasound still showed vessel malapposition. A previous report showed that aneurysmal dilatation of the stented segment with severe localized hypersensitivity reaction could be a potential cause of late thrombosis after DES implantation. If LSM is related to hypersensitivity of the DES, it may have a potential risk of adverse events. Although there is a paucity of data regarding malapposition as the cause of adverse events, careful long-term follow-up of patients with vessel enlargement after DES placement is recommended.     

Different vascular response to concurrent implantation of sirolimus- and zotarolimus-eluting stents in the same vessel

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have become routine therapy in clinical practice because restenosis is significantly reduced in patients treated with these devices. New generations of DES bearing newer antiproliferative drugs have been developed. Sirolimus was the first antiproliferative drug eluted by a DES (SES) while Zotarolimus represents a sirolimus-derived, newer antiproliferative drug borne by a different kind of DES (ZES). This report describes two cases of different vascular response to concurrent side by side implantation of SES and ZES in the same vessel and highlights significant early restenosis of ZES as compared with SES.     

Comprehensive Meta-Analysis on Drug-Eluting Stents versus Bare-Metal Stents during Extended Follow-up

Background

Several observational reports have documented both increased and decreased cardiac mortality or Q-wave myocardial infarction with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents.

Methods

We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents early after intervention (<1 year) and late (>1 year) among a broad population of patients, using a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Results

We identified 28 trials with a total of 10,727 patients and a mean follow-up of 29.6 months. For early outcomes (<1 year), all-cause mortality for drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents was 2.1% versus 2.4% (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-1.18]; P = .47), non-Q-wave myocardial infarction was 3.3% versus 4.4% (RR 0.78 [95% CI, 0.61-1.00]; P = .055), target lesion revascularization was 5.8% versus 18.4% (RR 0.28 [95% CI, 0.21-0.38]; P <.001), and stent thrombosis was 1.1% versus 1.3% (RR 0.87 [95% CI, 0.60-1.26]; P = .47). For late outcomes (>1 year), all-cause mortality for drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents was 5.9% versus 5.7% (RR 1.03 [95% CI, 0.83-1.28]; P = .79), target lesion revascularization was 4.0% versus 3.3% (RR 1.22 [95% CI, 0.92-1.60]; P = .16), non-Q-wave myocardial infarction was 1.6% versus 1.2% (RR 1.36 [95% CI, 0.74-2.53]; P = .32) and stent thrombosis was 0.7% versus 0.1% (RR 4.57 [95% CI, 1.54-13.57]; P = .006).

Conclusions

There was no excess mortality with drug-eluting stents. Within 1 year, drug-eluting stents appear to be safe and efficacious with possibly decreased non-Q-wave myocardial infarction compared with bare-metal stents. After 1 year, drug-eluting stents still have similar mortality, despite increased stent thrombosis. The reduction in target lesion revascularization with drug-eluting stents mainly happens within 1 year, but is sustained thereafter.