Underuse of antithrombotic and antiplatelet treatments for acute coronary syndrome in China: a note of caution

To the Editor： I read with great interest the recent article from the Sino-Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events （GRACE） of patients in China. This study includes patients from different parts of China, e.g., west （Xinjiang Autonomous Region Hospital）, north （Harbin Medical University Affiliated First Hospital）, east （Shanghai Medical University Affiliated 9th Hospital）, and south （Guangdong Provincial Cardiovascular Institute）. Therefore it is truly a very representative sample for a country as large and diversified as China.     

急性冠状动脉综合征患者植入药物洗脱支架远期临床疗效

目的 探讨与稳定性心绞痛患者相比,急性冠状动脉综合征患者植入药物洗脱支架后的远期疗效是否同样显著优于金属裸支架.方法 自2000年1月-2007年12月期间,3 771例冠状动脉性心脏病患者接受择期经皮冠状动脉内支架植入术并完成1年的临床随访.根据介入治疗的指征分为急性冠状动脉综合征组和稳定性心绞痛组,将每组进一步分为药物洗脱支架亚组与金属裸支架亚组.研究终点为死亡、Q波心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建以及确定的支架内血栓形成.结果 急性冠状动脉综合征组和稳定性心绞痛组中,药物洗脱支架亚组与金属裸支架亚组相比,随访1年的病死率、Q波心肌梗死发生率的差异均无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05).在稳定性心绞痛组中,药物洗脱支架亚组的靶血管血运重建率(5.6%)较金属裸支架亚组(11.4%)显著降低(P＜0.01);而在急性冠状动脉综合征组中,药物洗脱支架亚组的靶血管血运重建率(8.0%)与金属裸支架亚组(7.2%)的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组中支架内血栓均非常少见,且亚组间发生率的差异无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05).结论 择期冠状动脉介入治疗选择药物洗脱支架可显著降低稳定性心绞痛患者远期靶血管血运重建率,但急性冠状动脉综合征患者未能获得相似的疗效.该临床结果可能源于易损粥样斑块是急性冠状动脉综合征的主要病因.     

Drug-eluting stents improve clinical outcomes in Chinese diabetic patients with de novo coronary artery disease

Diabetes mellitus （DM） has been regarded as an equivalent risk factor as coronary artery disease and is present in nearly 25% of patients who receive percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI）. DM is shown as an adverse predictor for major adverse cardiac events （MACE） after PCI in bare metal stent （BMS） era. Recently, clinical trials have demonstrated the favorable tendency of using drug-eluting stents （DES） in treating diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. This study compared the clinical outcomes between the diabetic patients receiving DES with those receiving BMS in China.     

Drug-eluting stents:is it the beginning of the end for coronary artery bypass surgery?

Myocardial revascularization therapy of coronary artery disease is one of the most important medical advances of the past 50 years.1 Coronary revascularization by either bypass surgery or coronary angioplasty relieves angina and may improve the prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease.2,3 Randomized comparisons reveal no difference in survival free from myocardial infarction (MI) between surgery and balloon angioplasty.4,5 Stenting significantly improved the long-term outcome, while surgery is still associated with fewer reinterventions during follow-up.6-10 However, subsequent improvements in both percutaneous and surgical techniques may now limit the validity of any conclusions that have been drawn from the earlier studies. In fact, the lines of demarcation for patients suited for bypass or angioplasty are becoming blurry with each passing day.     

药物洗脱支架治疗无保护左主干病变

目的 评价药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉无保护左主干(ULMCA)病变的安全性及疗效.方法 选择2002年10月～2007年11月我院收治经冠状动脉造影证实为无保护左主干病变患者44例;合并心功能不全(左室射血分数<40%)5例,肺功能减退2例,慢性肾功能不全5例;常规行冠状动脉造影及经皮冠状动脉介入治疗.分析其冠脉造影特征、手术成功率及临床随访结果 .结果 44例患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗即刻成功率为100%,无严重术中并发症,手术住院期间的病死率、非致死性心肌梗死率及急诊常规行冠状动脉造影率均为0%.所有患者均植入药物洗脱支架.术后平均随访14.2～9.3月(6～65月),所有患者均未发生亚急性或延迟性支架内血栓形成;6例(13.6%)患者有心绞痛症状复发;1例患者在术后4个月困心力衰竭死亡;37例(84.1%)患者无严重不良心血管事件发生.35例(79.5%)患者进行了冠状动脉造影复查,其中冠状动脉造影复查提示发生再狭窄3例(8.6%):1例为左主干远端分叉病变,分叉处再狭窄转外科行常规行冠状动脉造影术;2例左主干末端分叉病变分支开口发生再狭窄,使用切割球囊再次经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后,症状缓解.结论 对选择性的冠状动脉左主干病变使用药物洗脱支架行介入治疗安全有效,近、远期疗效良好.     

Drug-eluting stents: is it the beginning of the end for coronary artery bypass surgery?

Myocardial revascularization therapy of coronary artery disease is one of the most important medical advances of the past 50 years. Coronary revascularization by either bypass surgery or coronary angioplasty relieves angina and may improve the prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease. Randomized comparisons reveal no difference in survival free from myocardial infarction     

Drug-eluting stent for the treatment of small coronary lesion: comparison between sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stent

Background  Patients with small coronary lesions are at increased risk for repeat interventions after coronary angioplasty and stenting. The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) has been demonstrated to improve the outcomes of these patients and is a focus of interest. Currently, two platforms of DES are available (sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)). However, it has less been known that DES, SES vs PES, is superior for the treatment of small coronary lesions.
Methods  In this retrospective study, 87 consecutive patients with 151 lesions underwent implantation of coronary SES (n=68) and PES (n=83). Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed at the time of stent implantation and subsequently at 8 months post-stenting. Small vessel disease was defined as lesions in vessels with diameter 2.5 mm measured by QCA. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, thrombosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were compared between the two groups.
Results  Baseline clinical characteristics and angiographic parameters were similar between the two groups. At clinical and angiographic follow-up, overall thrombosis rates were similar in both groups (0 vs 1.2%, P>0.05). The TLR and in-segment restenosis were not significantly different (19.1% vs 25.3%; 10.3% vs 10.8%, P=0.365 and P=0.913 respectively) between the two groups. The in-stent restenosis rate, however, was significantly higher in the PES group (4.4% vs 21.7%; P=0.002). Similarly, the late loss was significantly higher in the PES group ((0.140.38) mm vs (0.490.61) mm; P<0.001).
Conclusions  In this small sample-size, non-randomized study, the data indicated that implantation of SES for the treatment of patients with small coronary lesion showed more favorable results in respect of restenosis compared with PES implantation.