选择性左冠状动脉主干病变的介入治疗

目的冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)是多支血管病变血运重建的最佳方法,是无保护性左冠状动脉主干(LMCA)病变的标准治疗.本研究探讨无保护性LMCA病变介入治疗的疗效和可行性.方法总结分析1996年10月～2000年8月间20例住院的冠心病左主干病变患者接受直接支架术治疗.入选患者例行左室造影(LVEF>45%),冠状动脉血管成形术及其疗效评判采用常规标准,合并右冠脉严重弥漫狭窄病变或前降支(LAD)与回旋支(LCX)同时严重狭窄者不行该术.结果 20例中男17例、女3例,年龄42～71(平均64±12)岁,临床呈心绞痛Ⅱ-Ⅲ级,其中合并高血压9例、糖尿病(2型)1例.冠脉造影显示,左冠脉主干病变呈单纯狭窄者8例,其中近中段狭窄(50%～80%)者6例、开口狭窄(50%～60%)者2例,左主干夹层分离者2例,动脉瘤者1例,合并LAD或LCX病变(狭均>70%)者9例(狭窄50%～70%).全部患者左主干病变均进行直接支架术,其中6例伴LAD或LCX病变者先行PTCA或支架术后再进行左主干病变的支架置入术.置入左主干内的支架均为管状宽径短支架,16例为4.0 mm×9 mm(直径×长度)支架,3例为3.5 mm×9 mm支架,1例冠状动脉瘤者应用4.5 mm×9mm支架.左主干支架术成功率为100%,无残余狭窄或残余狭窄<10%,无任何并发症如支架血栓形成、急性心肌梗死、紧急CABG及死亡等.9例合并LAD(6例)或LCX(3例)狭窄者,先行LAD或LCX的PTCA术,其中3例PTCA术后残余狭窄<20%,5例残余狭窄30%～40%者中2例置入3.0×16mm支架、1例3.5×20mm支架、1例3.0×14 mm支架,1例LCX开口后狭窄(75%)者因PTCA后发生夹层放置3.5×12 mm支架,造影示夹层消失,无残余狭窄.冠状动脉瘤行带膜支架术者造影示瘤体消失,左主干管壁平整.随访1～4年,14例心绞痛发作消失、6例心绞痛复发但显著减轻(心绞痛Ⅰ级),后者有4例于术后半年～1年内复查冠脉造影提示早期再狭窄,其中2例单纯LMCA再狭窄者再次行冠脉血管成形术、2例LMCA合并LAD再狭窄者行CABG手术,无急性心肌梗塞或死亡等严重心脏事件发生,患者均能维持正常生活.结论本研究结果表明,选择性无保护性左冠状动脉主干病变支架术在临床上切实可行、疗效显著,可以是继CABG的另一治疗选择.     

Endovascular stenting of an unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis in a heart transplant patient

Endoluminal revascularization of left main coronary artery vessels is considered to be relatively contraindicated because of a high procedural mortality and restenosis rate. This report describes the first successful case of endovascular stenting in an unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis in a heart transplant patient.     

无保护左主干病变的介入治疗及随访结果

目的 :探讨无保护左主干病变患者冠状动脉 (冠脉 )内支架术的近、远期疗效。方法 :共选择 8例均无冠脉搭桥术史的左主干病变患者行冠脉内支架术 ,其中左主干近中段病变 5例 ,远段分叉病变 3例 ,其中 2例的左室射血分数 <4 0 % ,总结分析其临床、左主干病变特点、手术成功率及随访结果。结果 :左主干支架术的成功率为 10 0 % ,无残余狭窄或残余狭窄率 <10 % ,无任何严重并发症如支架内血栓形成、急性心肌梗死、紧急外科冠脉搭桥术或死亡等。术后随访 5～ 15 (10± 3.5 )个月 ,无一例死亡。临床心绞痛复发 1例 ,重复冠脉造影证明为前降支的新生病变所致 ;2例左室功能不全患者的左室射血分数提高了 15 %以上 ;5例复查了冠脉造影 ,其中 4例的原支架内基本无再狭窄 ;1例有 30 %再狭窄 (为前述症状复发的患者 )。结论 :支架置入术治疗无保护左主干病变疗效显著 ,是值得考虑的治疗手段 ;正确的病例选择和娴熟的操作技巧是手术成功的关键     

Management of failed stenting of the unprotected left main coronary artery

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly accepted as treatment for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease especially in those patients who are unsuitable for cardiac surgery. Treatment of any stent failure is associated with increased complexity and worse clinical outcomes when compared with de novo lesion revascularization. Intracoronary imaging has provided new insight into mechanisms of stent failure and treatment options have developed considerably over the last decade. There is paucity of evidence on the management strategy for stent failure in the specific setting of ULMCA. Treating any left main with PCI requires careful consideration and consequently treatment of failed stents in ULMCA is complex and provides unique challenges. Consequently, we provide an overview of ULMCA stent failure, proposing a tailored algorithm to guide best management and decision in daily clinical practice, with a special focus on intracoronary imaging characterization of causal mechanisms and specific technical and procedural considerations.     

One-year clinical outcomes of protected and unprotected left main coronary artery stenting.

AIMS: To evaluate outcomes for left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenting and compare results between protected (left coronary grafted) and unprotected LMCA stenting in the current bare-metal stent era. METHODS: We reviewed outcomes among 142 consecutive patients who underwent protected or unprotected LMCA stenting since 1997. All-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target-lesion revascularization (TLR), and the combined major adverse clinical event (MACE) rates at one year were computed. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (70%) underwent protected and 43 patients (30%) underwent unprotected LMCA stenting. In the unprotected group, 86% were considered poor surgical candidates. Survival at one year was 88% for all patients, TLR 20%, and MACE 32%. At one year, survival was reduced in the unprotected group (72% vs. 95%, P<0.001) and MACE was increased in the unprotected patients (49% vs. 25%, P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In the current era, stenting for both protected and unprotected LMCA disease is still associated with high long-term mortality and MACE rates. Stenting for unprotected LMCA disease in a high-risk population should only be considered in the absence of other revascularization options. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of stenting for unprotected LMCA disease.     

Early and long‐term results of percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main trifurcation disease

Objectives: We aimed to conduct a retrospective cohort study focusing on our 5‐year experience in the percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main (ULM) trifurcation disease. Background: Percutaneous treatment of ULM trifurcation remains a challenging and rare procedure for most interventional cardiologists. Moreover, data on long‐term outcomes are lacking. Methods: We retrieved all patients with ULM trifurcation disease treated percutaneously at our Institution since 2002, and adjudicated baseline, procedural, and outcome data. The primary end point was the long‐term rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, i.e., cardiac death, myocardial infarction, bypass surgery, or target vessel revascularization). Results: A total of 27 patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation for ULM trifurcation disease, with 14 (52%) cases of true trifurcations, i.e., with concomitant significant stenoses of the distal ULM/ostial left anterior descending plus ostial ramus intermedius and ostial circumflex. Bare‐metal stents were implanted in 8 (29%) patients and drug‐eluting stents (DES) in 26 (96%), with a main branch stent only strategy in 11 (40%), T stenting in 9 (33%), and V stenting in 6 (27%). Procedural and clinical success occurred in 26 (96%), with one postprocedural death. Angiographic follow‐up was obtained in 22 patients (81%), and clinical follow‐up was completed in all subjects after a median of 28 ± 17 months, showing overall MACE in 9 (33%), with cardiac death in 4 (15%), myocardial infarction in 1 (4%), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 4 (15%), and percutaneous target vessel revascularization in 5 (19%). Definite stent thrombosis was adjudicated in 1 (3%) patient. Treatment of a true trifurcation lesion and recurrence of angina during follow‐up were significantly associated with an increased risk of MACE (P = 0.029 and P = 0.050, respectively). Conclusions: Percutaneous treatment of ULM trifurcation disease is feasible, associated with favorable mid‐term results, and may be considered given its low invasiveness in patients at high surgical risk or with multiple comorbidities. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Revascularization for unprotected left main stem coronary artery stenosis stenting or surgery

For coronary artery disease with unprotected left main stem (LMS) stenosis, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is traditionally regarded as the "standard of care" because of its well-documented and durable survival advantage. There is now an increasing trend to use drug-eluting stents for LMS stenosis rather than CABG despite very little high-quality data to inform clinical practice. We herein: 1) evaluate the current evidence in support of the use of percutaneous revascularization for unprotected LMS; 2) assess the underlying justification for randomized controlled trials of stenting versus surgery for unprotected LMS; and 3) examine the optimum approach to informed consent. We conclude that CABG should indeed remain the preferred revascularization treatment in good surgical candidates with unprotected LMS stenosis.     

二代支架时代数据中糖尿病对无保护左主干患者不同血运重建术预后的影响

目的:在二代支架时代,糖尿病对不同血运重建策略治疗无保护左主干冠状动脉疾病患者的影响尚未可知。方法:回顾性入选823例无保护左主干冠状动脉疾病的患者,其中接受二代药物洗脱支架(DES)置入治疗的患者331例(糖尿病患者,n=99;非糖尿病患者,n=232),接受冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)患者492例(糖尿病患者,n=127;非糖尿病患者,n=365)。我们根据不同的血运重建策略比较了糖尿病对临床结果的影响。结果:在接受血运重建的无保护左主干病变患者中,糖尿病患者占27.5%(226/823)。经过平均25.3个月的随访后发现,在接受DES治疗的人群中,糖尿病患者与非糖尿病患者的全因死亡率、心源性死亡率、血运重建发生率、卒中和主要不良心脑血管事件的发生率没有显著差异。然而,在全因死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合终点(糖尿病组21.5%vs.非糖尿病7.2%,P=0.001)及心肌梗死发生率(糖尿病组15.4%vs.非糖尿病组1.6%,P<0.001)中,糖尿病患者明显高于非糖尿病患者。在接受CABG治疗的群体中,糖尿病组和非糖尿病组所有临床终点发生率相似。结论:在二代药物洗脱支架治疗无保护左主干病变的患者中,合并糖尿病的患者较非糖尿病组预后较差,在接受CABG的患者中,糖尿病和非糖尿病组预后相似。     

老年人无保护左主干病变经桡动脉途径介入治疗

目的探讨经桡动脉途径PCI在老年人无保护左主干病变(UPLMT)中的疗效和安全性。方法65岁以上的UPLMT患者28例择期行PCI,其中开口部6例,体部4例,分叉部18例,所有患者均置入药物洗脱支架。术后每半个月或1个月门诊复查1次,其中19例患者3～6个月行冠状动脉造影复查。结果28例患者PCI均取得成功,术后达TIMI3级血流,住院期间主要不良心脏事件1例,冠状动脉造影复查显示,支架内再狭窄1例(5.3%),再次行PCI。术后平均随访(18.6±2.7)个月,随访1年内无死亡。结论选择性经桡动脉老年UPLMT患者行PCI即刻成功率高,其近中期疗效可以被接受。     

无保护左主干病变患者经皮介入治疗的即刻及远期疗效分析

目的探讨无保护左主干病变患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的近、远期疗效。方法解放军总医院2001年12月~2006年8月接受PCI的77例左主干病变的病例资料,2006年8月对上述患者进行随访,包括造影及电话随访。结果即刻成功率100%,无严重术中并发症,住院期间无死亡。术后随访0.5~54(12.95±10.31)个月,其中1例术后6个月行冠状动脉CT检查,支架内无狭窄;20例患者进行了冠状动脉造影检查,1例术后30天出现支架内亚急性血栓;10例分别在1~12个月造影时显示支架内再狭窄,其中4例发生在左主干支架内,其余再狭窄均发生在分叉远端,并分别进行了处理。其余患者进行了电话随访,1例复发心绞痛,接受药物治疗。结论对经过选择的无保护左主干病变患者进行支架置入是可行和安全的,并有良好的近、远期疗效。     

Long-term outcomes of PCI vs. CABG for ostial/midshaft lesions in unprotected left main coronary artery

Background There are limited data on long-term (> 5 years) outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for ostial/midshaft left main coronary artery (LMCA) lesions. Methods Of the 259 consecutive patients in Beijing Anzhen Hospital with ostial/midshaft LMCA lesions, 149 were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES and 110 were with CABG. The endpoints of the study were death, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, the composite of cardiac death, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, the composite of cardiac death, MI, stroke or repeat revascularization).The duration of follow-up is 7.1 years (interquartile range 5.3 to 8.2 years). Results There is no significant difference between the PCI and CABG group during the median follow-up of 7.1 years (interquartile range: 5.3–8.2 years) in the occurrence of death (HR: 0.727, 95% CI: 0.335–1.578; P = 0.421), the composite endpoint of cardiac death, MI or stroke (HR: 0.730, 95% CI: 0.375–1.421; P = 0.354), MACCE (HR: 1.066, 95% CI: 0.648–1.753; P = 0.801), MI (HR: 1.112, 95% CI: 0.414–2.987; P = 0.833), stroke (HR: 1.875, 95% CI: 0.528–6.659; P = 0.331), and repeat revascularization (HR: 1.590, 95% CI: 0.800–3.161; P = 0.186). These results remained after multivariable adjusting. Conclusion During a follow-up up to 8.2 years, we found that DES implantation had similar endpoint outcomes compared with CABG.     

药物洗脱支架在冠心病无保护左主干病变中的应用

目的评价药物洗脱支架治疗经选择冠心病无保护左主干病变的安全性和有效性。方法2003年1月~2005年6月间,共有48例经选择的冠心病患者,年龄39~81岁,经冠状动脉造影证实为无保护左主干病变(左主干狭窄均≥75%)行介入治疗置入药物洗脱支架。结果48例患者介入治疗均获得成功,共置入药物洗脱支架75枚(51 Cypher,18 Taxus,6 Firebird)。其中左主干开口部狭窄5例(10.4%,5/48),体部狭窄6例(12.5%,6/48),远端分叉部位狭窄37例(77.1%,37/48)。37例远端分叉部位狭窄患者中,主支支架加边支经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)10例,双支架术27例,最后成功对吻球囊扩张30例(81.1%,30/37)。所有患者治疗后临床症状明显缓解或消失,住院及6个月随访期间无严重心血管事件发生,43例患者术后6个月行冠状动脉造影随访,2例患者再狭窄(均为分叉病变)行冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG),冠状动脉造影随访率89.6%,再狭窄率4.7%。结论药物洗脱支架介入治疗冠心病无保护左主干病变安全有效,近中期效果良好。     

Immediate and long-term outcomes of stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is now uniformly treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, some patients with LMCA disease do not receive CABG because of high operative risks. The advent of stent implantation has permitted a non-operative improvement in myocardial blood flow in many patients with single- and multi-vessel coronary artery disease. However, the outcomes of stent implantation for unprotected LMCA disease are still unclear. Stent implantation was performed for unprotected LMCA disease in 13 patients; eight patients had high operative risk and five patients had refused CABG. The primary success rate was 100% (13/13 patients). One patient (8%) developed a non-Q-wave myocardial infarction after LMCA stenting. Repeat angiography was obtained in five patients (38%) with recurrent angina, and three patients (23%) received repeated percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) for LMCA restenosis. In the follow-up period of 18±3 months, 12 patients (92%) remained in satisfactory condition with no further need for surgical intervention. One patient (8%) ultimately required CABG, and she died after CABG at 3 months after LMCA stenting. In conclusion, although CABG remains the standard treatment for LMCA disease, the present study demonstrates that stent implantation is a safe and clinically beneficial revascularization procedure for unprotected LMCA disease in patients who have high operative risk as well as those who refuse CABG.     

无保护左主干病变血运重建的临床评价

冠脉旁路移植术为无保护左主干病变的首选治疗。随着经皮冠脉介入治疗技术的进步,在有选择的无保护左主干患者中,PCI与CABG的疗效相当。本文对无保护左主干病变几种血运重建方法进行综述。     

老年无保护左主干病变置人药物洗脱支架与行冠状动脉旁路移植术的预后比较

目的 对比老年无保护左主干病变患者置入药物洗脱支架(DES)和行冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后2年的临床预后.方法 入选2004年1月至2006年6月因无保护左主干病变置入DES或行CABG的老年患者(≥70岁)共295例.随访2年,记录患者发生全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死及靶病变血管重建的情况.结果 共206例患者行CABG,89例患者置入DES.随访2年的累积死亡率CABG组为10.2%,DES组为13.3%,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.428).生存分析表明2年生存率CABG组为89.2%,DES组为86.4%,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.668).2年心肌梗死发生率CABG组为10.1%,DES组为7.8%,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.501).DES组2年内靶病变血管重建的发生率明显高于CABG组(13.5%比4.9%,P=0.015).多因素分析表明,年龄(HR:1.04,95% CI:1.01～1.09,P=0.024)、左心室功能不全(LVEF<30%)(HR:4.97,95%CI:1.22～24.85,P=0.018)以及2型糖尿病(HR:2.22,95%CI:1.31～4.86,P=0.001)均是死亡的独立危险因素.结论 对于≥170岁的老无保护左主干病变患者,行CABG和置入DES后2年的生存率相当,但置入DES的患者靶病变血管重建发生率明显高于行CABG的患者.     

Elective stenting of unprotected left main coronary disease

For the 12-mo period of 1995, we encountered seven consecutive patients with symptomatic unprotected left main coronary stenosis requiring revascularization. There were five males and two females, age ranging 48–76 years. One patient was referred to coronary bypass surgery. Of the remaining six patients, three refused surgery and the other three, including one with previous bypass surgery and two with previous interventional procedures, preferred percutaneous revascularization. All six had successful elective stenting of their left main coronary stenoses with the new short Palmaz-Schatz stents, P084 and PS104. There were no complications and all remained totally asymptomatic at 3–14 months followup. We conclude that with proper patient selection and the availability of appropriate stents, elective stenting of unprotected left main coronary stenosis is safe with good immediate and medium term results. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

高龄无保护左主干病变患者血运重建术的长期预后

目的:本研究旨在对比经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗高龄(≥65岁)无保护左主干病变(ULMCA)的长期预后。方法:入选2003年1月至2009年7月,北京安贞医院行PCI或CABG治疗的高龄(≥65岁)ULMCA患者427例(210例行PCI置入药物洗脱支架,217例行CABG),研究终点包括全因死亡、心肌梗死、再次血运重建、卒中、心源性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点以及主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE,包括心原性死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、卒中及再次血运重建的联合终点)。Cox比例风险模型用以计算风险比(HR)及95%可信区间(CI),及多因素分析。结果:随访时间7.0(5.2,8.1)年,校正前结果显示,心源性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点发生率CABG组显著高于PCI组(HR=1.544,95%CI:1.003～2.375,P=0.048)。卒中发生率CABG组显著高于PCI组(HR=3.089,95%CI:1.332～7.162,P=0.009)。再次血运重建发生率PCI组显著高于CABG组(HR=0.278,95%CI:0.159～0.486,P0.001)。全因死亡率两组间差异无统计学意义(HR=1.545,95%CI:0.951～2.510,P=0.079)。非致命性心肌梗死发生率两组间差异无统计学意义(HR=0.619,95%CI:0.314～1.222,P=0.167)。MACCE发生率两组间差异无统计学意义(HR=0.770,95%CI:0.550～1.079;P=0.129)。经Cox多因素分析校正后,CABG组心源性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点发生率仍显著高于PCI组(P=0.048),CABG组卒中发生率显著高于PCI组(P=0.011),PCI组MACCE发生率显著高于CABG组(P=0.027),主要由于PCI组较CABG组显著升高的再次血运重建率(P0.001),死亡、心肌梗死经校正后两组间差异无统计学意义。结论:CABG较PCI治疗高龄ULMCA患者的卒中发生率及心源性死亡、卒中、心肌梗死联合终点发生率显著升高,PCI组再次血运重建率显著升高。     

Percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Data have emerged demonstrating the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the unprotected left main (ULM) artery. The 2009 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions focused guidelines for PCI no longer state that ULM PCI is contraindicated in patients with anatomic conditions that are associated with a low risk of procedural complications and clinical conditions that predict an increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes. ULM PCI should be performed by operators with experience in the management of the anatomic complexities of left main and multivessel disease, specifically in issues relating to bifurcation disease, calcification, and hemodynamic support. Patients with ostial or shaft disease have lower risk of restenosis compared with distal bifurcation disease. Drug‐eluting stents (DES) should be used whenever possible as they reduce clinical restenosis. Intravascular ultrasound is an integral component of the procedure as it provides accurate assessment of lesion severity and can confirm optimal stent expansion and apposition. Compliance with dual antiplatelet therapy for at least 12 months is essential if DES are used. A collaborative, multidisciplinary approach with a “Heart Team” represented by a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, and non‐invasive cardiologist may optimize patient education and objective decision making when obtaining informed consent. Application of clinical and angiographic variables into risk models facilitates appropriate patient selection. Randomized clinical trials will address unanswered issues and help build consensus between cardiology and surgical societies to inform clinical decision making and optimize the outcomes for patients with ULM coronary artery disease. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠脉无保护左主干病变的近中期疗效

目的：评价药物洗脱支架治疗冠脉无保护左主干病变的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析2009年1月～2011年1月完成的65例无保护左主干病变药物洗脱支架置入术患者的临床资料。结果：65例无保护左主干病变患者全部成功置入支架,住院期间无主要心血管事件发生;术后6个月冠脉造影随访28例（43.1%）,其中2例发生再狭窄,再狭窄率7.1%;3年电话随访54例（83.1%）,其中8例患者心绞痛复发（14.8%）;2例（3.7%）行冠状动脉旁路移植术,余均无症状生存,3年生存率为100%。结论：药物洗脱支架治疗经选择的冠脉无保护左主干病变是安全可行的,有较理想的近期和中期疗效。