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.     

无保护左主干病变应用药物洗脱支架介入治疗的预后及影响因素分析

目的评价无保护左主干病变应用药物洗脱支架介入治疗的预后及影响因素。方法 45例无保护左主干病变患者接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）,根据病变是否累及左主干远端分叉分组,开口或体部病变为非分叉组（26例）,累及左主干远端或前降支、回旋支开口者为分叉组（19例）。15例患者术中应用血管内超声指导,13例在术后（9.5±6.3）个月进行了冠状动脉造影复查。结果 45例患者经治疗后均达到操作成功标准。术后42例患者获得随访,随访时间13～48个月。分叉组随访期间再发心绞痛率明显高于非分叉组（P〈0.05）,但两组主要心脏不良事件（MACE）发生率比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。对MACE单因素分析发现,术中血管内超声指导患者MACE发生率明显低于未应用血管内超声指导患者（P〈0.05）。13例术后复查患者4例发生支架内再狭窄,均发生在分叉组,且双支架术再狭窄率明显高于单支架（P〈0.01）。结论经选择的无保护左主干病变药物洗脱支架治疗是可行和安全的,可取得较好的近远期效果,术中应用血管内超声指导可明显减少MACE的发生。     

药物洗脱支架术后支架内亚急性血栓的发生和原因分析

目的分析冠状动脉药物洗脱支架（drug—eluting stent,DES）置入术后支架内亚急性血栓形成的因素及治疗措施。方法回顾性分析2004年12月至2008年4月我院心内科冠心病患者行药物洗脱支架置入术后11例患者发生支架内亚急性血栓的好发时间、部位及相关危险因素。结果2004年12月至2008年4月,我院共完成PCI术596例,其中DES置入术455例,术后发生支架内亚急性血栓11例,发生率为2．42％,血栓形成时间为3—15d,平均（6．9±4．1）d。其中冠脉3支病变患者5例,2支血管病变4例;左前降支病变6例;置入多支架8例;支架贴壁不良2例。支架置入术后突然出现无其他原因可以解释的明显胸痛者7例;心衰低血压状态2例;以心脏骤停发病者2例,均院外死亡。心电图提示支架段血管支配区域心肌缺血加重或急性心梗2例,造影复查证实原支架内闭塞伴血栓影像7例,术后突然出现无其他原因可以解释死亡2例。4例因停用氯吡格雷而致血栓形成;2例可能支架贴壁不良。经单纯球囊扩张,冠脉内注入血小板GPⅡb／Ⅲa受体拮抗剂等治疗,7例患者存活出院,4例患者死亡（病死率36．4％）。结论亚急性支架内血栓形成与患者临床病变特点、介入操作因素和支架本身、抗凝治疗等有关,多发生在AMI、合并糖尿病或心功能不全、多支血管病变、前降支病变、B／C型复杂病变等患者。急诊再次介入治疗是治疗支架内血栓的首选。     

Drug-eluting stent: where is the way out?

Since the first Palmaz-Schatz bare-metal stent (BMS)was implanted in human body in 1985,coronary stenting successfully resolved problem of the high restenosis rate in balloon dilatation era and soon became the primary means of clinical treatment of coronary artery disease.In order to meet the requirement of further reduction of the restenosis rate,drug-eluting stent (DES)was developed more than a decade later.With the excellent clinical efficacy,DESs established a milestone in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).However,since the "stent thrombosis (ST) storm"triggered in 2006,the late ST after DES implantation quickly became a challenging problem.1.2 To solve this problem,a lot of advances have been achieved.Among them,biodegradable polymers and abluminal coating are two new technologies with bright future.     

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.     

脉血康胶囊在冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术后的临床应用

目的探讨脉血康胶囊在冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病(冠心病)经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)术后的临床应用价值。方法选取冠心病PCI术后患者90例,随机分为治疗组和对照组,每组45例。对照组给予阿司匹林、波立维、瑞舒伐他汀和单硝酸异山梨酯;治疗组除给予上除药物外加用脉血康胶囊,疗程均为12周。观察2组治疗前后临床症状、静息心电图和血脂水平的变化。结果治疗组患者临床症状、静息心电图和血脂水平变化均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01,P<0.05)。结论脉血康胶囊联合常规用药可提高冠心病PCI术后患者的疗效。     

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.     

Coronary Artery Revascularisation : Past,Present and Future

The high prevalence of coronary artery disease has inspired the development of technologies and techniques for coronary revascularisation, including coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). PCI have witnessed the impact of innovation with newer hardware and drug eluting stents (DES). DES have indisputably reduced restenosis, however there is an emerging concern over the risk of late stent thrombosis associated with their use. We discuss the limitations of the current generation DES and review advances in the stent technology. The technology used in CABG has improved, resulting in off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB), endoscopic, video-assisted, and robot-assisted CABG with automated one-shot distal anastomotic devices being used increasingly. The difference in adverse outcomes between CABG and PCI continues to decline and the future may witness a close collaboration between the two.Key Words: Percutaneous coronary intervention, Coronary artery bypass graft, Drug eluting stents, Revascularisation     

药物洗脱支架对首诊心内科患者转行冠状动脉搭桥治疗的影响

目的了解药物洗脱支架（DES）对首诊于心内科的冠心病患者转诊行冠状动脉搭桥术（CABG）的影响。方法入选2001年7月1日至2002年6月30日（BMS时代）以及2003年7月1日至2004年6月30日（DES时代）首诊于北京安贞医院心内科并接受经皮冠状动脉介入（PCI）或冠状动脉搭桥（CABG）的2598例患者,分析BMS时代与DES时代患者转行CABG术的临床及冠状动脉病变特征,评价DES对转诊CABG治疗的影响。结果DES时代1333例（80．1％）患者接受PCI治疗,331例（19．9％）患者转行CABG术,BMS时代721例（77．2％）患者接受PCI治疗,213例（22．8％）患者转行CABG术,转诊率下降约12．7％。与BMS时代相比,DES时代左主干病变（1．4％比3．2％,P=0．025）前降支近端（39．8％比44．2％,P=0．047）与弥漫长病变患者（11．2％比19．7％,P=0．021）接受PCI治疗的比例明显增加,但无论是否置入DES,左主干病变、慢性闭塞病变、前降支近段病变以及开口病变的患者仍是接受CABG治疗的最常见冠状动脉病变类型。DES时代接受PCI治疗的患者再次血管重建率明显低于BMS时代（12．7％比7．1％,P〈0．001）。多变量Logistic分析显示,病变血管支数、左主干病变、慢性闭塞病变以及前降支近端病变是选择CABG的主要预测因素。结论DES对冠心病患者血管重建方式及策略产生了一定的影响,在非DES时代需要转诊行CABG治疗的冠状动脉病变,在DES时代接受PCI治疗置入DES。     

高龄冠心病患者介入治疗的临床分析

目的探讨高龄冠心病患者行冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的临床疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析45例行PCI治疗的高龄冠心病患者的临床资料,观察其冠状动脉造影结果、介入治疗成功率、并发症及术后随访情况。结果 45例患者成功41例,总成功率91.1%,植入支架50只,并发症发生率为11.1%,术后随访6～12个月,3例再次出现胸痛发作,其中1例为原有支架闭塞;1例急性心肌梗死死亡。结论 PCI治疗高龄冠心病患者成功率高,是一种安全、有效方法。     

50例75岁以上老年冠心病介入治疗疗效观察

目的：探讨高龄冠心病患者进行冠状动脉介入治疗的安全性及疗效。方法：回顾性分析2004年9月～2007年9月收入我院行冠状动脉介入术的50例75岁以上老年患者的临床资料，观察其冠状动脉造影结果、经皮冠状动脉介入术成功率、住院期间的治疗效果及随访结果。结果：50例病变相关动脉为前降支35处，右冠状动脉19处，回旋支10处。单支病变26例，双支病变18例，三支病变6例；PCI成功率98%；术后随访6～40个月，7例再次出现胸痛发作，3例患者行PCI术，其中1例为原有支架闭塞；急性心肌梗死死亡1例，为心肌梗死后心功能衰竭。结论：高龄老年患者选择冠状动脉介入治疗安全可靠，值得临床推广使用。     

Clinical outcome after management of unprotected left main in-stent restenosis after bare metal or drug-eluting stents

Background Implantation of either bare metal stent （BMS） or drug-eluting stent （DES） has been used in every day practice for patients with unprotected left main stenosis （UPLMS）. There are still a lack of data regading the subsequent results of UPLMS in-stent restenosis （ISR）. The present study aimed at determing the clinical outcome of UPLMS ISR patients after implantation of either BMS or DES.Methods Patients with UPLMS ISR after stenting were included. The primary endpoint was the cumulative major adverse cardiac events （MACE）, including cardiac death, myocardial infarction （Ml）, and target vessel revascularization （TVR）.Results UPLMS ISR rate was 14.8% （n=73, 15.7% after BMS, 14.5% for DES） after average of （3.89±2.01） years （range from 1 to 10.5 years） follow-up. Angiographic follow-up between 6-8 months was available in 85.3%. Of these,repeat percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） was used in 62 （84.9%） patients, with medicine only in 9 （12.4%） and coronary artery bypass graft （CABG） in 2 （2.7%）. Most repeat PCI patients were with unstable angina （87.0%）, and had decreased left ventricular ejection fraction （（42.58±5.12）%）, fewer focal/ostial left circumflex branch （LCX） lesions, in relative to medicine only group. After （31.9±23.3） months, the MACE, Ml, TVR and cardiac death were 31.5%, 1.4%, 24.1% and 8.2%, respectively. Definite and possible stent thrombosis occurred in 1 （1.4%） patient.Conclusions Medical therapy for asymptomatic isolated ostial LCX was safe. Repeat PCI for UPLMS ISR was associated with acceptable early and short-term clinical outcome. Further study was needed to elucidate the role of CABG in treating UPLMS ISR.     

免疫性血小板减少症(ITP)合并胸闷1例

免疫性血小板减少症（immune thrombocytopenia,ITP）是一种因免疫系统介导的血小板破坏过多进而导致血小板减少的疾病,具有高出血风险。冠心病（coronary artery disease,CAD）和经皮冠状动脉介入（percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI）术后的患者需要常规抗血小板治疗,与ITP的治疗相矛盾。本文报道1例ITP合并急性冠脉综合征（acute coronary syndrome,ACS）行PCI术的老年男性,因血小板数量低下、出血风险高而未行充分抗血小板治疗,导致ACS数次发作,于原冠脉支架内形成血栓,病程中数次行PCI术并调整抗血小板治疗方案和激素治疗剂量,以期为这类患者的临床处理提供参考。     

冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗不足的伦理思考

经皮冠状动脉介入（PCI）能够有效恢复冠心病患者缺血心肌的再灌注。目前能够接受PCI治疗的患者仅占患病总体的一小部分，冠心病患者尚存在PCI治疗不足的情况。     

无保护左主干病变不同治疗策略远期临床效果

目的观察无保护左主干(ULM)冠状动脉病变不同治疗策略远期临床效果。方法比较211例冠状动脉内药物洗脱支架置入术(DES)(DES组)和176例冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)(CABG组)治疗ULM病变后远期主要心脑血管事件(MACCE)发生率。结果 DES组远期再次血运重建率明显高于CABG组,心源性病死率明显低于CABG组(P<0.05)。采用倾向性得分法分析,血运重建方式与远期MACCE、总病死、心源性病死、心肌梗死和脑卒中发生率未见明显相关(P>0.05);DES与远期再次血运重建率明显相关,风险比为3.050,95%可信区间(1.289,7.217),P<0.05。结论与DES比较,CABG治疗的ULM病变患者临床状态更复杂,冠状动脉病变更严重。DES是接受血运重建的ULM病变患者远期再次血运重建的独立预测因子。     

STEMI急诊PCI后多支冠脉病变治疗的评价

目的 对ST段抬高急性心肌梗死(STEMI)伴多支冠状动脉病变的患者,急诊经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)后,比较药物治疗或择期PCI处理非梗塞相关血管的临床疗效,评估STEMI后对非梗塞相关血管的最佳处理方法.方法 分析比较了151例伴多支冠状动脉病变行急诊PCI处理梗塞血管的STEMI患者,根据对非梗塞相关血管不同处理方式分为两组,组1为心梗后7-14d行择期PCI者共64例,组2为药物治疗者共87例.比较两组病情变化、造影资料、住院期间及远期严重心血管不良事件(MACE)的发生情况.结果 两组临床情况及造影结果相似;组1病人的住院日为(16.98±5.84)d,较组2病人(11.29±5.00)d长,二者比较P=0.000;院内MACE发生率在组1为4.69%、组2为4.60%,院外MACE发生率在组1为3.13%、组2为13.79%,二者比较院内MACE差异无统计学意义,随访MACE差异有统计学意义(P=0.026).结论 STEMI伴多支冠脉病变患者急诊PCI后,再择期行PCI术,远期MACE发生率低于药物治疗.     

冠状动脉弥漫性长病变的介入治疗

目的:评价冠心病患者应用长支架及多个支架序贯置入进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的临床疗效。方法:对164例冠心病患者的284支靶病变血管进行了PCI,其中194支(68.3%)为弥漫性长病变,平均靶病变狭窄93.8%±8.7%。A组59例:1支靶病变血管置入单个长支架20~36mm;B组105例:至少1支靶病变血管为多个支架相连接(2~5个)。结果:A、B二组长病变置入支架的平均总长度分别为23.1±10.1mm,28.8±10.5mm(P<0.05);A、B组的PCI手术成功率均为100%,恢复TIMI 3级血流分别为93.6%、96.1%,手术即刻残余狭窄率分别为1.7%、2.1%,住院期间心血管病事件(MACE)发生率分别为3.4%、2.9%,二组间上述各项数值统计学无显著差异(P>0.05)。平均随访11.8个月,A组随访58例,MACE发生率为8.6%,无事件生存率为93.1%(54/58);B组随访101例,MACE发生率为11.9%,无事件生存率为83.8%(88/105),二组间比较,统计学无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论:冠心病患者的弥漫性长病变,应用长支架或多个支架序贯置入进行PC I,临床疗效均较好。     

Five-year Clinical Outcomes of CAD Patients Complicated with Diabetes after StentBoost-optimized Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Objective To evaluate the instant effects and five-year clinical outcomes of coronary artery disease patients complicated with diabetes mellitus after StentBoost-optimized percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).     

Why we need a national registry in interventional cardiology

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used in the management of acute coronary syndromes and refractory angina, and technical advances such as drug-eluting stents (DES) and potent antithrombotic therapies (such as clopidogrel and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors) have been heralded as improving long-term outcomes. Offsetting these advances has been: considerable concern about the safety of DES in regard to late stent thrombosis and antithrombotic drug-induced bleeding; the rising use of PCI and DES in clinical situations where evidence of efficacy is lacking; preferential use of PCI in low-risk populations; and limited cost-effectiveness data comparing PCI with other treatments. There are few contemporary data in Australia on the efficacy, safety and costs of PCI - as used in everyday clinical practice - that matches clinical outcomes with baseline patient characteristics, indications for intervention, coronary anatomy, procedural technique, co-interventions and site of care. A national registry that prospectively collects standardised data on processes and outcomes of PCI is warranted. This would ensure safe and appropriate evidence-based use of limited resources in an era of expanding use of PCI in clinical circumstances not tested in randomised trials.     

急性心肌梗死加速经皮冠状动脉成形术临床研究

【目的】探讨加速经皮冠状动脉成形术(加速PCI)治疗急性心肌梗死(AMI)的临床疗效。【方法】2 4例AMI患者入院后行加速PCI ,与同期行直接PCI的36例患者比较,观察两组梗死相关动脉(IRA)开通情况及心功能恢复。【结果】至冠状动脉造影时,在IRA开通方面,加速PCI优于直接PCI。对于左室功能恢复,加速PCI优于直接PCI。【结论】应用加速PCI治疗AMI安全、可行,利于IRA早期开通,利于左室功能恢复。