糖尿病多支冠状动脉病变患者不同血管重建疗效的比较

目的:评价对糖尿病多支冠状动脉病变患者的裸支架(BMS)置入、药物洗脱支架(DES)置入和冠状动脉搭桥手术(CABG)3种不同血管重建的疗效。方法:选择接受血管重建治疗的糖尿病伴多支冠状动脉病变患者427例,比较其BMS、DES和CABG不同治疗方法的疗效和随访2年的临床结果。结果:BMS、DES和CABG3组间住院时期的不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义。2年随访结果中,BMS组、DES组再次血管重建率分别为17.6%、10.4%,均显著高于CABG组的1.9%(P<0.01);BMS组的总MACCE发生率为23.1%,显著高于CABG组的10.7%(P<0.01),而DES的总MACCE发生率与CABG组相比差异无统计学意义。结论:糖尿病多支血管病变患者置入BMS后再次血管重建率和总MACCE发生率显著高于CABG,而DES的中期临床疗效并不逊于CABG。     

Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined human drug-eluting stents (DES) to determine the long-term effects of these stents on coronary arterial healing and identified mechanisms underlying late stent thrombosis (LST). BACKGROUND: Although DES reduce the need for repeat revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), data suggest the window of thrombotic risk for Cypher (Cordis Corp., Miami Lakes, Florida) and Taxus (Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts) DES extends far beyond that for BMS. METHODS: From a registry of 40 autopsies of DES (68 stents), 23 DES cases of >30 days duration were compared with 25 matched autopsies of BMS implantation. Late stent thrombosis was defined as an acute thrombus within a stent >30 days old. RESULTS: Of 23 patients with DES >30 days old, 14 had evidence of LST. Cypher and Taxus DES showed greater delayed healing characterized by persistent fibrin deposition (fibrin score 2.3 +/- 1.1 vs. 0.9 +/- 0.8, p = 0.0001) and poorer endothelialization (55.8 +/- 26.5%) compared with BMS (89.8 +/- 20.9, p = 0.0001). Moreover, DES with LST showed more delayed healing compared with patent DES. In 5 of 14 patients suffering LST, antiplatelet therapy had been withdrawn. Additional procedural and pathologic risk factors for LST were: 1) local hypersensitivity reaction; 2) ostial and/or bifurcation stenting; 3) malapposition/incomplete apposition; 4) restenosis; and 5) strut penetration into a necrotic core. CONCLUSIONS: The Cypher and Taxus DES result in delayed arterial healing when compared with BMS of similar implant duration. The cause of DES LST is multifactorial with delayed healing in combination with other clinical and procedural risk factors playing a role.     

Drug-eluting stents: from the results of clinical studies to economic simulation models in the Italian reality]

Several studies with drug-eluting stents (DES) have demonstrated dramatic reductions in restenosis rates compared with bare metal stents (BMS). Although the clinical benefits of DES are increasingly evident, important concerns about their costs have been raised. Most data regarding the impact of restenosis on long-term costs after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are derived from clinical trials. These studies demonstrate that there is no single cost or economic burden of restenosis; these values vary substantially according to the specific patient population under investigation and to the healthcare system reality where they are applied. In the present study we propose an economic interactive decision model which was applied to the Italian healthcare system, considering the different reimbursement rates of the Italian regions for DES and for both PCI and coronary artery bypass surgical interventions (CABG). The aim of this model was to simulate the impact of DES introduction after potential complete reimbursement by the national healthcare system, hypothesizing the usage of 1.4 stent per patient in case of single vessel disease and 2.4 stents in case of multivessel disease, and utilizing the TAXUS IV rate of revascularization for reintervention costs calculation and the ARTS-I study for CABG costs. For a low risk patients' population, the mean cost of a procedure with DES was 6% greater than utilizing BMS (xi 8125 for DES vs xi 7651 for BMS). However, this percentage was reduced in case of diabetic patients (+4%), long lesions (+2%) and was favourable for small vessels (-3%). In addition, in case of multivessel disease with conversion from CABG to DES, the 12 months cost per patients was reduced of around 30% (xi 10 170 for PCI vs xi 14 584 for CABG). This model suggests that national healthcare system may save 2.1% of the total costs (xi 18.60 millions) if 60% of revascularization procedures converts to total DES utilization and 15% from CABG to PCI with DES.     

Clinical results of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with drug eluting stents (DES) versus a matched control group of patients with STEMI treated with bare metal stents (BMS). METHODS: This registry included 122 patients with STEMI undergoing primary coronary angioplasty with DES implantation at our institution. The control group consisted of 506 patients implanted with BMS, who were matched for age, infarct location, and diabetic status. The incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR) and stent thrombosis were assessed up to 12 months. RESULTS: Twelve months follow up showed a non-significant trend towards reduced deaths (3.3% versus 7.1%, P=0.1), significantly reduced recurrent MI (0.0% versus 6.1%, P=0.02), TVR (5.7% versus 15.2%, P=0.006) and TLR (2.5% versus 14.0%, P=0.004) events in the DES group as compared to BMS group. The composite incidences of MACE at 12 months follow-up was lower in the DES group (11.5%) as compared to the BMS group (21.3%, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: According to our experiences, the use of DES in STEMI is safe and effective as compared to BMS. DES was effective in reducing the incidence of restenosis outcomes and overall adverse cardiac events up to 12 months.     

老年多支血管病变患者置入药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术后近远期临床结果

目的:本研究旨在比较老年(年龄≥75岁)稳定性冠心病合并多支血管病变患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)置入药物洗脱支架(DES)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的近远期临床结果。方法:本研究于2003年7月至2006年12月,连续入选年龄≥75岁稳定性冠心病合并多支血管病变患者363例,在我院行PCI置入DES(n=269)或CABG(n=94)治疗。主要终点为24个月时主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE),次要终点为24个月时全因死亡及非致死性心肌梗死(MI)、脑血管事件和再次血运重建以及全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件。结果:住院期间,CABG组的病死率(7.4%vs.1.9%,P=0.023)和非致死性MI的发生率(3.2%vs.0,P=0.023),明显高于DES组,CABG组的MACCE的发生率也明显高于DES组(10.6%vs.1.9%,P=0.001)。多因素回归分析结果显示:24个月时,CABG组和DES组的主要终点事件的风险未见明显差异[22.3%vs.15.2%,风险比(HR)=1.62,95%CI 0.63～3.31,P=0.379],两组的全因死亡、心源性死亡、非致死性MI、脑血管事件和再次血运重建的风险也没有明显差异;CABG组全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件的风险明显高于DES组(19.1%vs.8.2%,HR 3.87,95%CI:1.24～12.37,P=0.009)。结论:本研究提示,与DES相比,CABG可能会增加75岁以上多支血管病变患者的远期全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件的风险,而未降低再次血运重建和MACCE。     

Drug-eluting stents are associated with similar cardiovascular outcomes when compared to bare metal stents in the setting of acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) as compared to bare metal stents (BMSs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared outcomes among patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who received DES with those who received BMS. METHODS: In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes of a cohort of 122 patients who underwent primary or facilitated PCI and received a BMS were compared to 122 propensity-matched patients who received a DES. Seventy-two patients received sirolimus-eluting stents, and 50 received paclitaxel-eluting stents. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar among groups. One-, 6-, and 12-month outcomes, including reinfarction, death, stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were similar among groups. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was 13.3% in the BMS group and 9.2% in the DES group [P=not significant (ns)], recurrent MI was 5.3% in the BMS group vs. 4.4% in the DES group (P=ns), and TVR was 7% in the BMS group vs. 8.7% in the DES group (P=ns). CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the general use of DES in the setting of STEMI given similar cardiovascular outcomes among patients receiving BMS or DES, the need for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy with DES, and the possible repercussions of very late stent thrombosis.     

Selective versus Exclusive Use of Drug-Eluting Stents in Treating Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Real-World Cohort Study

There have been attempts to find new approaches to the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease without increasing adverse events. Deployment of drug-eluting stents (DES) for complex lesions and bare-metal stents (BMS) for simpler lesions, although already in wide use, has not been well supported by clinical study.A cohort of 1,658 patients who underwent multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention from March 2003 through June 2011 was studied for 1 year. These patients were divided into 3 groups: BMS only (599 patients); DES only (481 patients); and hybrid stenting (578 patients). Baseline characteristics were similar except for hyperlipidemia and moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation, which were more frequent in the DES and hybrid groups, respectively. Lesion characteristics were more complex in the DES group, compared with the other groups: more B2/C type lesions, longer stents, and smaller reference-vessel diameters (P <0.001). The rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year were similar between the groups (BMS=5.2%, hybrid=3.9%, and DES=3.4%; P=0.248). Subgroup analysis yielded no differences in death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization, or target-lesion revascularization. On multivariable analysis, the strongest predictors of 1-year MACE were percutaneous intervention complicated by dissection, renal failure, left ventricular ejection fraction below 0.40, mean lesion length, reference vessel diameter, and percutaneous intervention on the left circumflex coronary artery. The latter two had inverse relationships with MACE.In conclusion, implanting the DES for more complex lesions and the BMS for simpler lesions seems more sensible than the exclusive use of the DES or the BMS.     

A comparison of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein graft PCI outcomes: a meta-analysis

Aims: Studies demonstrate that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) is associated with reduced revascularization and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rates compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in native coronary vessels. Optimal PCI treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remains unclear despite SVG procedures representing up to 10% of PCI cases. We therefore performed a meta‐analysis to compare outcomes between BMS and DES in SVG PCI. Methods and Results: A search (2004–2009) of MEDLINE and conference proceedings for all relevant studies comparing mortality and MACE outcomes in DES versus BMS in SVG PCI and meta‐analysis of the data was performed. Twenty studies were identified from 2005 to 2009 enrolling a total of 5,296 patients. Meta‐analysis revealed a decrease in mortality associated with DES use, odds ratio (OR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.88; P = 0.004. Similarly, MACE (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51–0.82; P < 0.001), total lesion revascularization (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43–0.83; P = 0.002), and total vessel revascularization (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.41–0.80; P = 0.001) were significantly decreased in the patients in which DES were used compared to BMS. This reduction in mortality and MACE events associated with DES use appears to be limited to registry studies and not randomized controlled studies. Conclusions: Our meta‐analysis suggests DES use to be safe in SVG PCI and associated with reduced mortality and MACE rates with reductions in revascularization also observed. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:172–180)     

Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in unselected patients with acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the procedural characteristics and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) vs. bare metal stents (BMS). BACKGROUND: DES have been shown to reduce the incidence of restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR) in clinical randomized studies when compared with BMS in patients undergoing elective percutaneous intervention. Limited data are available with the use of DES in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-one consecutive patients who presented with myocardial infarction between 7/2001 and 8/2005 were studied. The procedural characteristics, 30-day and 12-month outcomes of 131 patients treated with DES were compared with 130 patients treated with BMS. RESULTS: At 12-months follow-up DES therapy was associated with a substantial decrease in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (HR 0.33; P =0.002), TVR (HR 0.19; P =0.002), and recurrent myocardial infarction (HR 0.23; P =0.051) vs. BMS therapy. Coronary interventions utilizing DES were characterized by a marked increase in the number of stent per target vessel (DES: 1.9 +/- 0.9 vs. BMS: 1.38 +/- 0.6, P < 0.0001), treatment of bifurcation (DES: 21% vs. BMS: 5%, P =0.0004), and multivessel intervention (DES: 22% vs. BMS: 8%, P =0.003). CONCLUSION: The routine use of DES in acute myocardial infarction is associated with reduced rates of MACE at 12 months vs BMS, despite a higher rate of complex procedures in the DES treated patients. In addition to its anti-restenosis effect, the improved outcome of patients treated with DES may be linked to a more complete revascularization in association with prolonged clopidogrel therapy.     

Drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease

Since the advent of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and the development of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), there has been debate as to which is the most optimal revascularization strategy for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Over the past decade, this controversy has been heightened with the introduction into the PCI armamentarium of drug-eluting stents (DES) and their profound reduction of restenosis and subsequent repeat revascularization. This article reviews the key registries and randomized clinical trials of PCI-DES and CABG in multivessel disease. Focus is placed on the recent data and evidence for long-term outcomes in patients treated with DES or CABG for complex multivessel coronary disease, including unprotected left main disease. The article also discusses risk models and the decision process for appropriate selection of revascularization techniques in patients with multivessel coronary disease.     

Unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in routine clinical practice: findings from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) as used in routine clinical practice. BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown that DES prevent target vessel revascularization in selected patients, but whether this translates into superior outcomes, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), for the full spectrum of patients treated with DES in North America is unknown. METHODS: Patients in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry enrolled in 2004 who received at least 1 DES (n = 1,460) were compared with 1,763 patients enrolled in the recruitment period immediately preceding the approval of DES (2001 to 2002) who received at least 1 BMS. RESULTS: Patients receiving DES more often had diabetes mellitus and less often presented with an acute myocardial infarction (MI). At 1 year, cumulative death and MI was 7.6% in DES- and 8.7% in BMS-treated patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 to 1.15; p = 0.34). The 1-year rate of target vessel revascularization was 5.0% in DES and 9.2% in BMS patients (p < 0.001), and the risk of any repeat revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary bypass was lower in DES patients (adjusted HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.60; p < 0.001). Patients with both simple and complex lesion characteristics benefited from DES with lower risk of repeat target vessel revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention compared with BMS (any complex lesion: adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.83; absence of any complex lesion: adjusted HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71). The 1-year incidence of stent thrombosis was 1.0% in DES patients. CONCLUSIONS: The generalized use of DES resulted in better outcomes than BMS, with fewer clinically driven revascularization procedures and similar rates of death and MI at 1 year.     

无保护左主干病变冠状动脉搭桥术与雷帕霉素洗脱支架治疗的对比研究

目的:回顾性分析无保护左主干病变患者使用雷帕霉素洗脱支架(DES)的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与冠状动脉旁路移植手术(CABG)治疗的中、远期疗效,并探讨应用SYNTAX SCORE来评估病变风险与临床事件的相关性。方法:本研究回顾性收集了176例无保护左主干病变患者,其中CABG组80例,PCI-DES组96例。收集患者的基本情况、左主干病变特点及SYNTAX评分、CABG和PCI手术情况,随访患者术后3年的主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)的发生率。结果:术后3年随访,PCI-DES组与CABG组的MACCE发生率及无MACCE生存率比较差异无统计学意义,但PCI组靶血管再次血运重建率(TVR)明显高于CABG组(P<0.05)。用SYNTAX SCORE把PCI-DES和CABG两组患者分为高积分组(≥30.0)和低积分组(<30.0):高积分组,术后3年PCI-DES亚组MACCE事件发生率高于CABG亚组(23.53%∶18.05%,P<0.05),无MACCE事件生存率低于CABG亚组(51.47%∶70.83%,P<0.05)。低积分组,术后3年MACCE事件发生率CABG亚组高于PCI-DES亚组(12.50%∶7.14%,P>0.05),而无MACCE事件生存率低于PCI-DES亚组(75.00%∶82.14%,P<0.05)。结论:PCI-DES与CABG治疗无保护左主干病变患者总体疗效相似。用SYNTAX SCORE指导无保护左主干病变血管重建方式的选择有重要价值,但在不同的患者人群中,仍应结合临床特征和冠状动脉病变特点选择恰当的血运重建术。     

PCI versus CABG for multivessel coronary disease in diabetics

Objectives: To explore the clinical performance of a strategy of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with multivessel disease (MVD) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), when it is based on clinical judgment. Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for poor outcome after PCI. However, PCI may result in better outcome if the choice of revascularization (PCI versus CABG) is based on the physician decision, rather than randomization. Limited experiences have compared revascularization by DES‐PCI versus CABG in DM patients with MVD. Methods: From August 2004 to August 2005, 220 consecutive DM patients with MVD underwent DES‐PCI (93) or CABG (127) at our Institution. The type of revascularization was dependent on patient and/or physician choice. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) included death, myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stroke. Results: Compared with PCI patients, CABG patients had higher prevalence of 3‐vessel disease (P < 0.001), significant LAD involvement (P < 0.001), presence of total occlusions (P = 0.04), collateral circulation (P < 0.001). At 2‐year follow‐up, MACCE were not different between CABG group and DES‐PCI group (OR 1.2; P = 0.6) and, only when the clinical judgment on the revascularization choice was excluded at propensity analysis, DES‐PCI increased the risk of 24‐month MACCE in total population (OR 1.8; P = 0.04). Conclusions: For patients with DM and MVD, a clinical judgment‐based revascularization by DES‐PCI is not associated with worse 2‐year outcome compared with CABG. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with drug-eluting stents: insights from the first phase of the prospective multicenter german drug-eluting stent registry

Background: Controversy exists about the impact of treating bifurcations on overall outcome of coronary interventions using drug‐eluting stents (DES). We sought to investigate 1‐year outcome of the treatment of bifurcation lesions using DES in a large “real‐world” cohort. Methods and Results: Among 5,126 patients enrolled in phase I of the multicenter German Drug‐Eluting Stent Registry, 814 (16%) were treated for a bifurcation lesion. Patients with bifurcations were compared to those without bifurcations in terms of baseline characteristics, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. Usage of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) was also evaluated. In total, 1,021 and 5,189 stents were implanted in the bifurcation (1.25 stents/patient) and nonbifurcation (1.2 stents/patient) group, respectively, but 64.5% of bifurcation lesions were treated with a single stent. More complex lesion and procedural characteristics were observed in the bifurcation group. However, there was no difference in 1‐year MACCE rates (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) between the bifurcation group and nonbifurcation group (8.1% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.85). Rates of TVR (11.2% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.75) and Academic Research Consoritum‐defined definite stent thrombosis (0.9% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.67) were also comparable. MACCE and TVR rates remained similar after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. MACCE and TVR in SES patients were 7.2% and 12.6% versus 8.7% and 10.2% in PES patients (P = 0.46 and P = 0.30, respectively). Conclusion: In this large multicenter registry, treatment of bifurcation lesions with DES appears effective and safe. The presence of bifurcations did not affect 1‐year outcomes after DES implantation. The outcomes for SES and PES were similar. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:344–352)     

Comparison of late (3-year) registry data outcomes using bare metal versus drug-eluting stents for treating ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarctions

Clinical trial data have supported the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs), but contemporary "real-world" registry data regarding the late safety profiles of DES are limited. This prospective registry-based study included 1,569 consecutive unselected patients with STEMIs who underwent emergency primary percutaneous coronary intervention from January 2001 to December 2009. Of the study cohort, 200 patients (12.7%) received DES, while 1,369 patients (87.3%) underwent bare-metal stent (BMS) placement. The primary end points of the study were all-cause mortality and target vessel revascularization at 1, 2, and 3 years. Survival status was assessed by municipal civil registries. Repeat revascularization procedures were prospectively collected in the hospital database. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the DES group at 3 years (4.2% vs 13.5%, p = 0.007) compared to BMS-treated patients, but DES use was not an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.10). Target vessel revascularization was significantly lower in the DES group compared to the BMS group at 3 years (10.5% vs 21%, p = 0.001). DES use was an independent predictor of reduced target vessel revascularization (adjusted odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.77, p = 0.004). Late definite stent thrombosis occurring after 1 year occurred in 4 (2.5%) patients in the DES group compared to 6 (0.7%) in the BMS group (p = 0.05). DES use was an independent predictor of late stent thrombosis (adjusted odds ratio 8.6, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 38, p = 0.004). In conclusion, this contemporary registry-based study of patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI demonstrated improved revascularization rates without increased 3-year hazard of adverse clinical outcomes in DES-treated patients.     

冠心病多支病变支架植入与冠脉旁路移植术疗效的比较

目的：比较老年冠心病多支冠状动脉病变患者的雷帕霉素洗脱支架植入与冠状动脉旁路移植术近期与中期的疗效。方法：回顾性人选2001年12月至2005年12月，行择期血运重建的多支冠状动脉病变患者，分为冠状动脉旁路移植术组（CABG组，n=310），雷帕霉．素洗脱支架植入组（SES组，n=257）。随访包括死亡、心肌梗塞（MI）、卒中和再次血运重建的主要不良心脑血管事件（MACCE）。采用Kaplan-Meier方法估计无事件生存率。采用Logistic多元回归方法调整分析治疗对终点事件的相对影响。结果：随访率96．4％。中位随访时间24个月。随访30d，CABG组MACCE的发生率高于SES组（5．8％：1.5％，P〈0．05），CABG组的死亡率高于SES组（4．7％：1．4％，P〈0．05）。至随访结束，CABG组累积死亡率仍高于SES组（6．6％：2．9％，P〈0．05），但再次血运重建率低于SES组（1.6％：8．6％，P〈0．05），MACCE两组间无差异。结论：多支冠状动脉病变患者冠状动脉旁路移植术的死亡率高于雷帕霉素洗脱支架植入，中期血运重建率低于雷帕霉素洗脱支架植入。     

Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery with percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of consecutive, selected patients treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. BACKGROUND: Although recent data suggest that PCI with DES provides better clinical outcomes compared to bare-metal stenting for ULMCA disease, there is a paucity of data comparing PCI with DES to CABG. METHODS: Since April 2003, when DES first became available at our institution, 123 patients underwent CABG, and 50 patients underwent PCI with DES for ULMCA disease. RESULTS: High-risk patients (Parsonnet score >15) comprised 46% of the CABG group and 64% of the PCI group (p = 0.04). The 30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate for CABG and PCI was 17% and 2% (p < 0.01), respectively. The mean follow-up was 6.7 +/- 6.2 months in the CABG group and 5.6 +/- 3.9 months in the PCI group (p = 0.26). The estimated MACCE-free survival at six months and one year was 83% and 75% in the CABG group versus 89% and 83% in the PCI group (p = 0.20). By multivariable Cox regression, Parsonnet score, diabetes, and CABG were independent predictors of MACCE. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher percentage of high-risk patients, PCI with DES for ULMCA disease was not associated with an increase in immediate or medium-term complications compared with CABG. Our data suggest that a randomized comparison between the two revascularization strategies for ULMCA may be warranted.     

Revascularization in severe left ventricular dysfunction: outcome comparison of drug-eluting stent implantation versus coronary artery by-pass grafting.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcome of drug eluting stent (DES) implantation (Sirolimus or Paclitaxel) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction with the outcome of a similar group of patients undergoing coronary artery by-pass grafting (CABG). BACKGROUND: Revascularization provides long-term benefits in patients with severe LV dysfunction. However the modality to achieve it is still unsettled in this high risk group of patients. METHODS: Two-hundred-twenty patients (20% women) with severe LV dysfunction (LV Ejection Fraction 相似文献   

Long-term clinical outcome of thin-strut cobalt-chromium stents in the drug-eluting stent era: results of the COBALT (comparison of bare-metal stents in all-comers' lesion treatment) registry

Background: Despite widespread penetration of drug‐eluting stents (DES) in clinical practice, a relevant percentage of patients with coronary artery disease are still treated with bare‐metal stents (BMS). Contemporary BMS, however, are less well investigated and comparative data on clinical outcome are lacking. Methods and Results: This single‐center registry aimed to assess characteristics and outcome of patients treated with 2 different new‐generation cobalt‐chromium BMS, the MULTI‐LINK VISION and PRO‐Kinetic stents. During the study, adopted criteria for BMS selection were: (1) limited compliance to dual antiplatelet therapy, (2) ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (MI) or saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions, and (3) noncomplex lesions located either in the right coronary artery or in the nonproximal segments of the left coronary artery. During a 24‐month period 1,176 patients were treated with the VISION (n = 438) or PRO‐Kinetic stent (n = 738). Median duration of follow‐up was 549.5 and 528.5 days, respectively. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization were numerically lower in the VISION group (10.4 vs. 12.3% and 11.9 vs. 15.2%, P = 0.24 and 0.11). Death (4.1 vs. 4.3%, P = 0.85), MI (2 vs. 2.3%, P = 0.78), and ARC definite stent thrombosis (0.5 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.84) were similar. By multivariate analysis, variables associated with TLR were SVG interventions (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.26–3.86), total stent length (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.02), and smoking (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.05–2.16). Conclusion: In the DES era, the use of last‐generation thin‐strut BMS in selected patients is associated with acceptable clinical outcome, with similar clinical results for both the MULTI‐LINK VISION and PRO‐Kinetic stents. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:496–504)     

Comparison of long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following implantation of bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents in aorto-ostial lesions

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to aorto-ostial (AO) lesions is technically demanding and associated with high revascularization rates. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes after bare metal stent (BMS) compared to drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation after PCI to AO lesions. A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of all consecutive patients who underwent PCI to AO lesions at 2 centers. Angiographic and clinical outcomes in 230 patients with DES from September 2000 to December 2009 were compared to a historical control group of 116 patients with BMS. Comparison of the baseline demographics showed more diabetics (32% vs 16%, p = 0.001), lower ejection fractions (52.3 ± 9.7% vs 55.0 ± 11.5%, p = 0.022), longer stents (17.55 ± 7.76 vs 14.37 ± 5.60 mm, p <0.001), and smaller final stent minimum luminal diameters (3.43 ± 0.53 vs 3.66 ± 0.63 mm, p = 0.001) in the DES versus BMS group. Angiographic follow-up (DES 68%, BMS 66%) showed lower restenosis rates with DES (20% vs 47%, p <0.001). At clinical follow-up, target lesion revascularization rates were lowest with DES (12% vs 27%, p = 0.001). Cox regression analysis with propensity score adjustment for baseline differences suggested that DES were associated with a reduction in target lesion revascularization (hazard ratios 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.52, p <0.001) and major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.79, p = 0.003). There was a nonsignificantly higher incidence of Academic Research Consortium definite and probable stent thrombosis with DES (n = 9 [4%] vs n = 1 [1%], p = 0.131). In conclusion, despite differences in baseline characteristics favoring the BMS group, PCI with DES in AO lesions was associated with improved outcomes, with lower restenosis, revascularization, and major adverse cardiac event rates.