部分血运重建介入治疗对高龄冠心病患者临床疗效的观察

目的评价高龄冠心病患者行部分血运重建介入治疗的近期与远期疗效。方法将2005年12月～2008年12月期间在我院接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的101例高龄（年龄≥75岁）患者分为完全血运重建组和不完全血运重建组,观察两组近期（住院）及远期（随访1年）主要心脏事件。结果不完全性血运重建组患者多支血管病变、复杂（B2/C型）病变、完全闭塞病变及重度狭窄病变的比例均高于完全性血运重建组（P〈0.01或P〈0.05）,两组间近期死亡、急性心肌梗死和急诊CABG的发生率没有显著性差异（P〉0.05）;远期死亡、急性心肌梗死和再次血运重建的发生率以及心绞痛复发情况也没有显著性差异（P〉0.05）。结论对高龄冠心病患者采取部分血运重建的介入治疗策略可以达到较满意的临床效果。     

Coronary stenting versus bypass surgery in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction

Background  The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with HFPEF.

Methods  From July 2003 through September 2005, a total of 920 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and HFPEF (ejection fraction ≥50%) underwent PCI (n=350) or CABG (n=570). We compared the groups with respect to the primary outcome of mortality, and the secondary outcomes of main adverse cardiac and cerebral vascular events (MACCE), including death, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularization, at a median follow-up of 543 days.

Results  In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the PCI group than in the CABG group (0.3% vs. 2.5%, adjusted P=0.016). During follow-up, there was no significant difference in the two groups with regard to mortality rates (2.3% vs. 3.5%, adjusted P=0.423). Patients receiving PCI had higher MACCE rates as compared with patients receiving CABG (13.4% vs. 4.0%, adjusted P <0.001), mainly due to higher rate of repeat revascularization (adjusted P <0.001). Independent predictors of mortality were age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and chronic total occlusion.

Conclusion  Among patients with CAD and HFPEF, PCI was shown to be as good as CABG with respect to the mortality rate, although there was a higher rate of repeat revascularization in patients undergoing PCI.

     

2型糖尿病合并冠心病多支血管病变血运重建方式选择

目的：比较2型糖尿病（type 2 diabetes mellitus,T2DM）合并冠心病多支血管病变患者接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（ percutaneous coronary intervention ,PCI）或冠状动脉旁路移植术（ coronary artery by-pass graft,CABG）3年后的预后情况,探讨该类患者如何选择再血管化治疗方式。方法选择2009年5月1日至2010年5月31日于天津市胸科医院连续进行的冠状动脉造影（ coronary angiography ,CAG）确诊T2DM伴多支血管病变并成功行PCI或CABG治疗且病例及随访资料完整者,进行为期3年的随访,收集患者一般情况、临床指标、实验室检查指标等信息,分析死亡、心肌梗死、再次血运重建、再发心绞痛、心力衰竭、卒中等主要不良心脑血管事件（ major adverse cardio cerebral events ,MACCE）。结果3年期随访显示,PCI组MACCE发生率显著高于CABG组（31.58％ vs 17.68％,P＜0.01）,PCI组心源性死亡（4.82％vs 1.10％,P＜0.05）、心肌梗死（4.39％ vs 1.10％,P＜0.05）及再发心绞痛（17.27％ vs 10.50％, P＜0.05）发生率较高。结论与PCI相比,CABG仍然是目前T2DM合并多支血管病变患者血运重建治疗的更好方法。     

介入治疗冠状动脉左主干病变临床研究

目的研究经皮冠脉介入术（PCI）和冠脉旁路移植术（CABG）对冠状动脉左主干病变的疗效和安全性.方法回顾性收集2005年5月至2008年10月在昆明医学院附一院及云南省内部分医院心内科住院治疗的30例左冠状动脉主干病变行PCI治疗的患者为PCI组,另收集2007年3月至2008年10月在昆明医学院附一院心外科住院治疗的16例冠状动脉搭桥治疗左主干病变患者为CABG组.观察PCI组及CABG组患者的临床特征.并对上述两组患者进行随访,观察死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建术、脑血管事件等终点事件的发生情况及心绞痛复发情况.结果两组的临床特征基本相近.PCI组有5例（16.7%）左主干末端分叉病变达到Ⅲ级病变,而CABG组8例（50.0%）左主干末端分叉病变达到Ⅲ级病变,P=0.045,差异有统计学差异.PCI组中药物洗脱支架（DES）应用占绝对优势（97.0%）,左主干病变支架置入成功率为100%.两组在心绞痛复发率、再次心肌梗死、血运重建率、主要不良心脏事件（MACE）发生率、主要不良心脑事件（MACCE）发生率均无统计学意义.PCI组中急性冠脉综合症（ACS）与非ACS远期疗效比较在心绞痛复发率（29.4%VS0.0%,P〈0.05）及MACE发生率（41.2%VS7.6%,P〈0.05）差异有统计学意义.结论 （1）经选择无保护左主干病变PCI治疗的疗效与CABG治疗左主干病变比较PCI是可行和安全的,并取得较好的近远期疗效.（2）急性冠脉综合征可能是影响心绞痛复发率及MACE的因素之一.     

复杂冠脉病变经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术的临床比较

目的 比较经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗复杂冠状动脉病变的疗效。方法 对血管病变符合B2／C型病变的130例患者分别进行PCI或CABG治疗，进行近期和远期疗效分析。结果 从近期疗效看，在住院期间PCI组与CABG组总的心血管事件没有差异(3．8％vs7．7％；RR=0．480；P=0．341)。两组远期疗效相比其总的心血管事件没有差异(30．3％vs28．6％；RR=1．085；P=0．840)。随访结束时PCI组与CABG组总的心血管事件无差异(33．3％vS34．6％；RR=0．944；P=0．880)。结论 对于复杂冠状动脉病变的治疗由于PCI的优势，在部分病人、部分病变PCI有取代CABG的趋势。     

不同血运重建方式治疗复杂冠状动脉病变合并左心功能不全的围术期疗效比较

目的对比研究冠状动脉旁路移植术（CABG）和经皮冠状动脉介入术（PCI）治疗复杂冠状动脉病变合并左心功能不全 （LVD）的围术期疗效。方法回顾性分析2003年1月~2013年12月在我院接受CABG和PCI治疗的复杂冠脉病变合并左心功 能不全（左室射血分数LVEF≤50%）患者的临床资料,其中CABG 患者386 例,PCI 患者580 例,采用1∶1 配对方法,以 EuroSCORE危险因素及术前超声心动图指标为配对标准,两组各纳入患者135例,比较两组患者近期结果及术前术后左室形态 及功能变化。结果两组患者基线资料比较,PCI组慢性肺病及3个月内心梗发生率显著高于CABG组（8.1% vs 0.7%,P=0.003; 64.4% vs 31.9%,P=0.000）,而左主干病变比例显著低于CABG组（12.6% vs 23.7%,P=0.018）,其它方面两组之间无统计学差 异。血运重建结果比较：CABG组处理的靶血管数目明显多于PCI组（2.90±0.81 vs 1.67±0.73,P=0.000）,完全再血管化程度明 显高于PCI 组（94.8% vs 51.8%,P=0.000）。术后术前超声结果比较：CABG组与PCI 组LVEF差值无显著差异（P=0.171）,而 CABG组LVEDD差值明显高于PCI组（P=0.000）。围术期不良事件方面,两组住院死亡率及其它严重并发症无统计学差异。 结论对于复杂冠脉病变合并LVD患者,CABG与PCI均为安全可行的血运重建方式。与PCI相比,CABG完全再血管化程度 更高,术后早期左心功能改善更为明显。     

COMPARISON BETWEEN CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS SURGERY AND DRUG-ELUTING STENTS IMPLANTATION TO DIABETIC PATIENTS WITH MULTIVESSEL CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE

Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of drug-elating stents （DES） implantation in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease （MVD） compared with coronary artery bypass graft （CABG） on the clinical outcomes. Methods From May 2003 to April 2005, 150 consecutive type 2 diabetic patients with MVD underwent revascularization, 84 by percutaneous coronary intervention （PC1） with DES and 66 by CABG. The study end point was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events （MACEs） during hospital interval after procedure and follow-up. Results Most preoperative characteristics were similar in two groups, but left main disease （30% vs 4%, P = 0. 001 ） and three-vessel disease （ 70% vs 54%, P = 0. 045 ） were more prevalent in CABG group. Complete revascularization was achieved in more patients in CABG group than that in PC1 group （82% vs 67%, P =0. 037）. Cumulative incidence of MACEs in hospital was similar between two groups （2.4% PC1 vs 9. 1% CABG , P =0. 069） despite the higher early morbidity （6. 1% vs 0%, P =0. 022） associated with CABG. Patients were followed up clinically for a mean of 18 - 8 months （ range 13- 36 months）. The incidence of MACEs remained higher after PC1 with multiple DES （21.4% vs 9. 1%, P =0. 041 ） mainly driven by a more require for repeat revascularization （ 13. 1% vs 3. 0%, P = 0. 030 ）. Conclusion PC1 with DES implantation, combined with tight glycemic control, aggressive cardiovascular risk factor modification and antiplatelet treatment, may be a safe and feasible alternative to CABG for selected diabetic patients with multivessel disease.     

不同血运重建方式对冠心病合并非重度左心功能不全患者预后的影响

目的 比较经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)对冠心病合并非重度左心功能不全患者预后的影响.方法 选择2011年1月至2013年1月在首都医科大学宣武医院住院的冠心病合并非重度慢性心力衰竭行血运重建患者412例为研究对象,根据血运重建方式分为PCI组268例和CABG组144例.随访截止至2016年1月,随访主要终点事件为全因病死率,次要终点事件为非致死性心肌梗死、再次血运重建及主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生率,比较PCI组与CABG组长期预后的差别.结果 随访时间5(3,6)年,其中PCI组失访28例(10.4％),CABG组失访17例(11.8％).住院期间总MACE、死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建(TVR)发生率两组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);心功能变化比较,PCI组有效比例高于CABG组,无效比例PCI组低于CABG组(P＜0.05).随访期间,PCI组累积全因病死率低于CABG组(7.8％vs.19.4％,P＜0.05),总MACE发生率低于CABG组(38.1％vs.43.8％,P＜0.05);PCI组累积非致死性心肌梗死发生率、累积TVR率与CABG组的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).Cox模型多因素分析矫正后,PCI组总MACE发生率(HR=1.357,95％CI 1.105～1.729),全因病死率(HR=0.426,95％CI 0.121 ～ 0.753)仍低于CABG组(P＜0.05);TVR率、非致死性心肌梗死的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 冠心病合并非重度心功能不全患者行PCI安全有效,与CABG组相比心功能改善更明显,可降低全因病死率和MACE.     

冠状动脉旁路移植术应用于介入治疗后血管再狭窄患者

目的：总结分析76例介入治疗后患者行冠状动脉旁路移植术(coronary artery bypass grafting，CABG)的经验体会。方法：1999年8月至2002年4月共完成介入治疗后的CABG手术76例，占同期CABG手术的14.0％。单纯经皮腔内冠状动脉成形术(percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty，PTCA)39例，合并支架置人术37例，合并斑块旋切术2例，二次介入治疗史5例。介入治疗相关血管再狭窄46例，新产生的其他冠脉病变6例，介入治疗不成功者4例，介入治疗后残留严重血管病变11例，介入治疗急性并发症9例。介入治疗组心肌梗死患者的比例高于非介入治疗组，而三支病变患者的比例低于非介入治疗组。结果：介入治疗组急诊手术比例为27．6％，高于非介入治疗组的13．3％，而OPCAB实施率为91．3％，低于非介入治疗组的97．2％。介入治疗组远端吻合口数目少于非介入治疗组。介入治疗组手术死亡6例，其中3例死于泵衰竭，1例死于心室纤颤，1例死于脑部并发症，1例死于肾功能衰竭，其手术死亡率(7．9％)高于非介入治疗组(1．9％)。介入治疗组发生围术期心梗4例(5．3％)，其发生率高于非介入治疗。随访远期死亡1例，复发心绞痛1例。结论：对于介入治疗后再狭窄、不能达到完全再血管化和引起急性并发症的患者，冠状动脉旁路移植术常常是最为有效而必要的治疗方法。及时合理地处理介入治疗急性并发症，是降低死亡率的主要措施。     

Long-term outcome of native artery versus bypass graft intervention in prior coronary artery bypass graft patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Background Patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) have a poor outcome after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Little is known about the treatment strategy and outcome of percutaneous c...     

Four-year clinical outcome in asymptomatic patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography

Background Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is indicated for angina with coronary stenosis.However,PCI for asymptomatic coronary stenosis remains controversial.We prospectively followed a group...     

冠心病血运重建术后患者药物治疗现状

目的 了解我院冠心病血运重建患者二级预防的现状.方法 入选药物洗脱支架对血运重建的影响研究(DESIRE)数据库中2003年7月至2004年6月接受血运重建的冠心病且资料完整的患者2048例,平均年龄(60.1±10.4)岁,男1580例.记录经皮冠状动脉成形术(PCI)或冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)患者住院和随访期间服用阿司匹林(ASA)、B受体阻滞剂(BB)、他汀类药物、血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)等药物的情况.随访中记录主要心血管不良事件(死亡、AMI、再次血运重建、脑卒中)发生情况.平均随访(587±127)d.结果 住院期间ASA、BB、他汀类药物和ACEI的使用率分别为1923例(93.9%)、1821例(88.9%)、1387例(67.7%)和1288例(62.9%).ASA、BB、他汀类药物3种药物合用者1206例(58.9%),4种药物合用者813例(39.7%).PCI组二级预防常用药物的使用率显著高于CABG组(P＜0.001).随访期间药物的使用率均显著低于住院期间(P＜0.001),ASA、BB、他汀类药物及ACEI的使用率分别为1860例(90.8%)、1175例(57.4%)、881例(43.0%)和501例(24.5%),其中CABG组使用率显著低于PCI组(P＜0.001).随访药物使用率有区域差异,北京地区患者药物使用率显著高于其他地区患者(P＜0.001).结论 冠心病患者接受血运重建后,住院期间二级预防药物治疗使用率均较高.随访期间药物使用率显著降低,特别是接受CABG治疗和北京以外地区患者,应加强冠心病患者二级预防药物的治疗.     

Comparative effects of percutaneous coronary intervention for infarct-related artery only or for both infarct- and non-infarct- related arteries in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease

Background Rapid recanalization of infarct-related artery （IRA） has become the major target during primary percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction （MI）, but strategy for treatment of non-IRA lesions in this setting remains unclear. This study aimed to compare long-term effects between PCI for IRA only and that for both IRA and non-IRA in ST-elevation MI patients with multi-vessel disease.
Methods A total of 242 eligible patients with ST-elevation MI and at least two diseased coronary arteries （luminal narrowing 〉70%） undergoing primary PCI were included. Of them, 149 patients underwent primary PCI for IRA only （group 1）, and 93 received primary PCI for IRA followed by elective PCI for non-IRA 7 to 15 days after acute myocardial infarction （AMI） （group 2）. Drug-eluting stents （DESs） were deployed in more than 90% of the patients.
Results The two groups did not differ with respect to baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. No significant differences were observed in 12-month clinical follow-up results regarding major adverse cardiac events （11.5% vs 15.1%, P 〉0.05） and target lesion revascularization （8.1% vs 7.6%, P 〉0.05） between the two groups. However, patients in group 1 had higher rates of recurrent angina （10.1% vs 2.1%, P 〈0.05） and depressed left ventricular ejection fraction evaluated by echocardiography （0.56±0.22 vs 0.63±0.25, P 〈0.05）.
Conclusion With the use of DESs, complete revascularization with elective PCI for non-IRA after primary PCI may exert a beneficial effect on long-term symptomatology and left ventricular function in patients with ST-elevation Mt and multi-vessel disease.     

Age-based clinical and angiographic outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in patients with coronary artery disease

Background Advanced age independently predicts early and late mortality and major adverse cardiac events （MACE） after percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI）. Randomized clinical trials indicate that siroUmus-eluting stent （SES） implantation reduces target lesion revascularization （TLR）, but there are limited data on the impact of age on outcomes following SES implantation in patients with coronary artery disease （CAD） in real-world practice. Methods A total of 333 CAD patients with 453 lesions were enrolled in this study. Subjects were divided into two groups according to age： a young group （〈65 years old, 244 patients with 369 lesions） and elderly group （≥65 years old, 89 patients with 113 lesions）. Clinical follow-up and quantitative coronary angiography （QCA） were performed seven months after PCh Results Baseline clinical, demographic, angiographic, and procedural chararcteristics were similar in both groups, except that there were more female patients in the elderly group （21.3% vs 9.8%, P=-0.006）. Primary success rate was similar in both groups （96.5% in young group vs 95.7% in elderly group, P〉0.05）. During angiographic follow-up at 7 months, binary in-stent restenosis and in-segment restenosis rates were not significantly different between the two groups （4.7% vs 1.8%; 9.7% vs 8.8%, P〉0.05 respectively）. Both sub-acute and late thrombosis rates were similar in the two groups （0.3% vs 0.9% and 1.2% vs 0.9%, P〉0.05 respectively. TLFI was not significantly different between the two groups （6.5% vs 3.5%;P=-0.246）. The rates of bleeding, stroke, angina rehospitalization during the, follow-up period were also similar in both groups （P〉0.05 respectively）. Conclusion Despite a high-risk clinical profile, coronary SES implantation can be safely and effectively performed in elderly patients with a similar procedural success rate, a low complication rate, and excellent 7-month outcomes.     

Efficacy of stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease in 297 patients

Background Angioplasty in the unprotected left main coronary artery （LMCA） has been controversial. This study aims to evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of stenting, including bare metal stent and drug eluting stent （DES）, for treatment of unprotected LMCA disease. Methods Between September 1997 and December 2005, a total of 297 consecutive patients underwent percutanous coronary intervention （PCI） on LMCA lesions in our hospital. Their in-hospital data and clinical follow-up outcomes were analyzed and those in pre-DES ＂＇era＂ （group I, from September 1997 to December 2002） were compared with those in DES ＂era＂ （group Ⅱ, from January 2003 to December 2004. Patients in 2005 for the time of follow-up less than one year were not included in this group）. Results Altogether 368 coronary stents were successfully deployed in 295 patients. Stents failed to be implanted after balloon predilation in two patients, who received coronary artery bypass graft （CABG） successfully. Bifurcation techniques for distal LMCA executed in 206 patients （69.4%, 2061297）, included crossover stenting in 156 （75.7%）, T stenting in 4 （1.9%）, provisional T stenting in 28 （13.6%）, kissing stenting in 5 （2.4%） and stent crushing in 13 （6.3%） patients. During their hospital stay, 5 （1.7%） patients died after PCI procedure, of which 4 died from cardiac origin and one of renal failure. The total in-hospital major adverse cardiac events （MACE） were 2.0% （6/297）. In the follow-up period, 19 patients （6.5%） died [15 （5.1%） of cardiac death and 4 of non-fatal myocardial infarction （MI）]. Besides, 2 （0.7%） developed subacute thrombosis （SAT） and 16 （5.4%） performed target lesion revascularization （TLR）. The total follow-up MACE was 14.5% （431297）. Further analysis also showed that, compared with patients in group I, those in group II apparently had more multi-vessel involvement （14.7% vs 81.9%, P〈0.001）, and more bifurcation lesions （32.4% vs 72.2%, P〈0.001）. After PCI, in-hospital MACE of group II was significantly lower than that in group I （1.1% vs 9.4%, P〈0.05）. And the incidences of MACE, TLR and angiographic restenosis in group II were all significantly lower than those in group I （all P〈0.05） after one year follow-up. Conclusions As new PCI strategies and intervention devices such as DES are developed, coronary stenting, which might have brought better in-hospital and long-term outcomes than CABG are proved to be technically successful and can be safely applied for the treatment of LMCA lesions in the experienced center for coronary intervention.     

严重左心室扩张患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗和冠状动脉旁路移植术的对比研究

目的 对比严重左心室扩张(LVD)患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的近期和远期临床结果.方法 选择2003年7月至2005年9月在我院接受PCI或CABG治疗的严重LVD患者251例,分析不同血运重建方式对住院和随访期间不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)的影响.结果 严重LVD患者接受PCI治疗101例,CABG治疗150例,其中PCI组的住院MACCE发生率低于CABG组[3.0％ (3/101)比10.7％ (16/150),P=0.024],住院病死率分别为2.0％、8.7％(P=0.028).PCI组和CABG组分别随访(516±182)d和(515±231)d(P=0.967),分别有99例(98.0％)和136例(90.7％)完成随访.两组随访MACCE发生率PCI组、CABG组分别为18.2％ (18/99)、9.6％ (13/136)差异无统计学意义(P=0.054),PCI组再次血运重建率(14.1％、14/99)比CABG组高(0.7％、1/136,P＜0.01),两组随访死亡[4例(4.0％)比12例(8.8％),P=0.151]、心肌梗死[2例(2.0％)比1例(0.7％),P=0.781]和脑卒中[2例(2.0％)比0例(0.0％),P =0.176]的发生率相当.结论 严重LVD患者接受PCI安全可行,其住院病死率较低,远期预后与CABG相当,但再次血运重建率较高.     

高龄急性冠状动脉综合征患者治疗策略初探

目的:评价经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)、冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)和药物治疗对高龄急性冠脉综合征(ACS)患者的初步疗效.方法:将高龄(年龄≥75岁)、诊断为ACS、经冠状动脉造影证实至少1支血管直径狭窄≥70%、并且分别接受PCI、CABG和单纯药物治疗的147例患者,分为PCI组(50例)、CABG组(43例)和药物治疗组(54例),观察每组治疗后30天与1年时的死亡、非致死性MI以及再次血运重建术(TVR)等主要心血管不良事件(MACE)的发生情况,并探讨MACE与血脂、高敏C-反应蛋白(hsCRP)之间的关系,进行统计学处理.结果:从近期疗效看,CABG组的院内死亡率最高,与PCI组和药物治疗组比较具有显著性差异(P＜0.05);从远期疗效看,药物治疗组远期心性死亡率最高22.2%,PCI组远期死亡率显著低于药物治疗组(P=0.001),CABG组低于药物治疗组但无显著性差异(P=0.058),而PCI组与CABG组的远期死亡率没有显著差异(P=0.068);且发生MACE的患者入院时血脂和hsCRP水平均显著高于非MACE的患者(P＜0.05).结论:高龄ACS患者可以从早期的血运重建治疗尤其是PCI中获益,CABG作为一种"储备"措施更适用于症状难以控制、不适合做PCI的病人.但是该结果尚需大样本、多中心临床试验证实.     

冠状动脉多支病变不完全血运重建的疗效探讨

目的 探讨不完全性血运重建术对冠状动脉多支病变患者疗效及预后的影响.方法 113例经冠状动脉造影确诊为冠状动脉多支病变患者行单纯药物治疗(CT)或不完全血运重建治疗(IR),随访12个月,比较两组的左心室射血分数(LVEF)及心绞痛发作、6 min步行试验改善情况,以及再入院率、主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生率、病死率.结果 治疗后,IR组6 ain步行试验[(384.5±97.5)m]、LVEF(0.50士0.08)、心绞痛发作次数[(4.1±2.3)次/周]较治疗前[分别为(362.1±98.0)m、0.47±0.08、(6.4±2.1)次/周]显著改善(P值均＜0.01);CT组6 min步行试验[(326.9±94.6)m]、LVEF(0.43±0.07)较治疗前[(359.2±99.8)m、0.46±0.09]显著恶化(P值均＜0.01),治疗前心绞痛发作次数[(7.0±2.9)次/周]与治疗后[(6.1±1.8)次/周]的差异无统计学意义(P=0.053).随访12个月时,IR组6 min步行试验、LVEF的增幅分别为(0.08±0.03)%、(0.07±0.01)%,心绞痛发作次数降幅为(0.33±0.06)%;CT组6 min步行试验、LVEF值、心绞痛发作次数降幅分别为(0.08±0.02)%、(0.06±0.02)%、(0.05±0.05)%;两组间上述指标的差异均有统计学意义(P值均＜0.01).IR组再人院率为40.0%,显著低于CT组的60.4%(P＜0.05).IR组的MACE发生率及全因病死率分别为11:7%、3.3%,与CT组(分别为18.9%、3.8%)的差异均无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05).结论 冠状动脉多支病变行不完全性血运重建能够改善患者症状,提高生活质量,但对于预后的影响还需进一步研究.     

吸烟的冠状动脉三支病变患者药物洗脱支架置入术与冠状动脉搭桥术2年疗效比较

 目的评价吸烟的冠状动脉三支病变患者药物洗脱支架置入术（DES-PCI）与冠状动脉搭桥术（CABG）2 年的临床疗效。方法连续入选2006 年7 月至2008 年4 月间进行血运重建治疗的206 例吸烟的三支病变患者，分为PCI组（108 例）和CABG组（98 例），观察术后2 年2 组患者主要不良心脑血管事件（MACCE）发生率及全因死亡率的差异。结果PCI 组与CABG组2 年MACCE 发生率差异无统计学意义（18.5%：12.2%， P>0.05），PCI 组再次血运重建率高于CABG 组，差异有统计学意义（9.3%：2.0%， P<0.05）。2 组全因死亡率差异无统计学意义（5.6%：8.2%， P>0.05），其中年龄与左室射血分数是影响预后的（ P<0.05）。结论吸烟的三支病变患者行DES鄄PCI 进行血运重建治疗与行CABG治疗在2 年内疗效相当，年龄与左室射血分数为影响预后的因素。     

SYNTAX评分在冠脉血运重建中应用的临床研究

目的探讨SYNTAX评分在论证复杂冠脉病变中,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）及冠状动脉旁路移植术（CABG）可行性、安全性及远期疗效的应用。方法回顾性分析2009年1月~2011年9月我院PCI及CABG患者冠脉造影的SYNTAX评分及相关临床辅助检查。对出院患者随访12个月观察主要不良心脑血管事件（包括患者死亡、脑卒中和MI发生率、再次血运重建率）。结果在SYNTAX研究1年随访结果显示,PCI组与CABG组联合安全性终点事件（心源性死亡、脑卒中、心肌梗死）发生率比较,心源性死亡发生率差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,心肌梗死发生率差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,而脑卒中CABG组相对PCI组发生率较高（P〈0.05）。结论基于SYN-TAX评分的个体化方案,低分区及中分区PCI和CABG疗效相当;高分区CABG的主要不良心脑血管事件发生率明显低于PCI。