国产西罗莫司洗脱支架与裸支架治疗急性心肌梗死临床疗效的比较

目的探讨国产西罗莫司洗脱支架与裸支架治疗急性心肌梗死（AMI）临床疗效的差异。方法173例连续行直接PCI的AMI患者随机分为西罗莫司洗脱支架组（87例）和裸支架组（86例）,分析住院期间和支架置入后6个月的支架内血栓、主要心血管事件（包括再次心肌梗死、缺血性靶血管重建和死亡）发生率及6个月再狭窄率。结果两组患者在术后血管通畅、肌酸激酶峰值、心功能和住院期间心脏事件方面差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组各有2例支架内血栓（2．4％比2．3％,P〉0．05）。6个月时,国产西罗莫司洗脱支架组的支架内再狭窄率（4．5％比40．0％,P〈0．01）、节段内再狭窄率（6．8％比44．9％,P〈0．01）和主要不良心脏事件发生率（8．0％比24．4％,P〈0．01）显著低于裸支架组。国产西罗莫司洗脱支架组主要心脏事件的减少主要是因为缺血性靶血管重建减少所致（3．4％比11．6％,P〈0．05）。结论与裸支架相比,国产西罗莫司洗脱支架治疗AMI患者并未增加6个月内支架内血栓的发生,而显著降低6个月的再狭窄率和主要心脏事件发生率。     

药物洗脱支架联合替罗非班治疗急性心肌梗塞的研究

目的：探讨药物洗脱支架与替罗非班联合用于急诊PCI治疗ST段抬高型心肌梗塞（STEMI）的安全性和有效性。方法：选择2005年1月至2007年9月STEMI患者254例，均于12h内行急诊PCI治疗，随机分为三组，分别给予置入金属裸支架（BMs）、药物洗脱支架（DES）、药物洗脱支架＋替罗非班治疗。随诊观察6～12个月，比较三组主要心脏不良事件（MACE，包括死亡率、再发心肌梗塞、靶病变重建等）、支架内血栓形成和无复流现象发生的差异。结果：154例患者中，47例置入金属裸支架，49例置入药物洗脱支架，58例置入药物洗脱支架＋替罗非班治疗。随访期间。MACE、支架内再狭窄率、靶病变重建率，DES组分别为：6．1％、4．1％、2．0％，BMS组分别为：21．3％、17．0％、12．8％，两组相比差异均有显著性（P〈0．05～〈O．01），支架内血栓形成两组差异无显著性。DES组＋替罗非班组与DES组相比MACE和元复流现象显著减少（P〈0．05），其余指标差异无显著性（P〉0.05）。结论：在STEMI的急诊PCI中，DES具有更好的有效性和安全性，与替罗非班联合应用可以明显降低心脏不良事件的发生和无复流现象。     

药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架对高龄患者安全性和效果的研究

目的:对比评价药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架对75岁以上高龄患者的安全性和有效性.方法:2005-11至2006-12我院75岁以上接受冠状动脉支架置入术的患者269例,年龄在75～87岁;其中,药物洗脱支架组140例,金属裸支架组129例.30天、6～12个月进行临床随访,对比2组全因死亡和主要不良心脏事件(MACE,包括心脏性死亡,非致死性心肌梗死和靶病变血运重建的发生率).结果:药物洗脱支架组支架直径显著小于金属裸支架组(P＜0.05),支架长度显著大于金属裸支架组(P＜0.05).30天MACE药物洗脱支架组与金属裸支架组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).术后6～12月随访,两组只有靶病变血运重建率在药物洗脱支架组显著低于金属裸支架组(P＜0.001),在总随访率、造影复查率、造影复查时间、MACE和全因死亡率等之间均无显著差异(P均＞0.05).药物洗脱支架组晚期血栓发生率为1.4%,金属裸支架组未见晚期血栓发生.结论:药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架对75岁以上的高龄患者具有同样的疗效和安全性,并且MACE有减少的趋势,但药物洗脱支架有发生晚期血栓的可能性.     

国产雷帕霉素洗脱支架和进口紫杉醇洗脱支架对照研究

目的比较国产雷帕霉素洗脱支架（EXCEL）和进口新型紫杉醇洗脱支架（TAXUS）的长期有效性和安全性。方法选择符合冠心病介入治疗标准的患者106例,随机选择EXCEL和TAXUS支架治疗,其中EXCEL组55例,TAXUS组51例。比较两组冠状动脉造影参数及术后3 a随访死亡、心肌梗死、支架内血栓和靶血管血运重建等不良事件发生率。结果 3 a随访,死亡、心肌梗死、支架内血栓和靶血管血运重建单个不良事件差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。EXCEL组、TAXUS组总不良事件发生率分别为12.7%、17.6%,两组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论两种支架在临床长期随访均显示了较高的安全性和较好的有效性,均可以作为介入治疗的一线选择,值得推广。     

国产药物洗脱支架早期介入治疗非ST段抬高的急性冠状动脉综合征

已证实早期冠状动脉支架术联合积极的抗血小板和抗栓治疗可显降低中至高危急性冠状动脉综合征（ACS）患的死亡率，明显改善近期和中期临床结果。最近，几个随机临床试验证明，在选择的患中雷帕霉素洗脱支架与金属裸支架相比可明显减少再狭窄的发生，药物洗脱支架可使主要不良心脏事件的发生率从金属裸支架的16．4％减少至7．8％。雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架在非ST段抬高的急性冠状动脉综合征（non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome，NSTE—ACS）患中的安全性和有效性鲜有报道。因此，我们应用Firebird支架（微创医疗器械有限公司）治疗不稳定性心绞痛（unstable angina，UA）和非ST段抬高的心肌梗死（non—ST—elevation myocardial infarction，NSTEMI）患，旨在评价其安全性和有效性。     

老年急性心肌梗死患者直接冠状动脉介入治疗的特点及疗效

目的分析老年急性心肌梗死（AMI）患者行直接冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）的可行性及近远期疗效。方法196例AMI患者分为老年组（108例）和非老年组（88例），分析两组患者临床特征、冠脉病变特点、是否进行球囊预扩张、支架植入情况、近远期疗效。结果老年组患者多有冠心病史（44．4％vs23．9％，P=0．003）；老年组梗死相关动脉（IRA）以LAD（50．9％）和RCA（44．4％）为主，非老年组IRA以LAD（59．1％）为主（P=0．005）；两组IRA狭窄程度、病变形态无差异性（P均〉0．05）；老年组常有2支或3支冠脉病变（80．6％），非老年组患者以单支病变为主（46．6％，P=0．001）；与非老年组相比，老年组支架植入前常需进行球囊预扩张（89．2％vs72．3％，P=0．004），但植入支架直径、长度及血运重建程度无差异性。住院及随访期间老年组靶血管血运重建率及死亡率均较非老年组偏高，但未达到统计学意义。结论老年AMI患者进行直接PCI安全有效，但与非老年患者相比，支架植入前常需进行球囊预扩张。     

血栓通联合参麦注射液治疗老年非ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死的临床观察

目的探讨老年非ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死（AMI）的中西医结合有效疗法。方法将84例符合WHO诊断标准的老年AMI病人分成A组、B组、C组。C组予常规疗法；A组在C组基础上加血栓通（冻干）针剂450mg、参麦注射液50mL分别于5％葡萄糖250mL中静脉输注，每日1次，连用14d后再口服同类药物14d；B组在C组基础上加血栓通450mg于5％葡萄糖或生理盐水250mL中静脉输注，每日1次，连用14d周后再口服同类药物14d。观察各组间的心功能、心律失常、心源性休克、血糖升高及病死率等情况。结果A组心力衰竭、心律失常发生率明显低于C组（P〈0．01），同时在血糖升高及病死率方面也有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；B组与C组在心力衰竭、心律失常发生率方面也有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；A组与B组之间，除控制血糖升高有统计学意义外（P〈0．05），其他并发症发生情况大致相同（P〉0．05）。结论血栓通联合参麦注射液治疗非ST段抬高型AMI病人，能够促进血液循环，改善心功能，减少非ST段抬高型AMI病人心力衰竭、心律失常、血糖升高及病死例数。     

急性ST段抬高心肌梗死冠状动脉内血栓抽吸后延迟支架植入术的疗效观察

目的对急性ST段抬高性心肌梗死患者行急诊冠状动脉介入（percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI）治疗,经冠状动脉内血栓抽吸后使心肌梗死溶栓试验（TIMI）血流达3级后,比较延期支架植入与即刻支架植入两种治疗方式对预后的影响。方法选择2010年1月至2012年1月符合急诊PCI治疗条件的急性心肌梗患者共149例．经冠状动脉内血栓抽吸后使心肌梗死溶栓试验血流达2～3级后,93例当时植入支架患者为即刻支架植入组．56例术后经强化抗凝及抗血小板治疗5～7d后再次手术植入支架者为延迟支架植入组,观察两组ST段术后回落超过50％的患者例数、慢血流或无复流发生率、心肌染色分级及支架使用情况,同时随访术后3个月时心功能状态及主要心血管事件（包括心肌梗死、血运重建、卒中、各种原因的死亡）。结果延期支架组心电图ST段回落比例明显高于即刻支架植入组,差异有统计学意义（62％vs.46％,P〈0．01）。无复流及慢血流在延迟支架组明显少于即刻支架组,差异有统计学意义（8％vs．17％,P〈0．01）。延迟支架组支架使用量明显少于即刻支架组,差异有统计学了意义[（2．3±0．7）枚 vs.（3．5±1．1）枚,P〈0．01]。3个月后两组主要心血管事件及左心室功能状态比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论冠状动脉内血栓抽吸后延迟支架植入,可减少支架使用量,有利于减少无复流及慢血流现象的发生,对近期预后无不利影响。     

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。     

国产雷帕霉素洗脱支架在急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死中的应用

目的：评价国产雷帕霉素支架在急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死中应用的安全性和有效性,并观察其近、中期临床疗效。方法：将147例急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死、发病12h以内在我院接受急诊介入治疗的患者随机分为2组,分别植入国产药物支架（Firebird支架组,n=78）和金属裸支架（Driver支架组,n=69）。2组年龄、性别、发病时间、病变特征等基础临床情况无显著差异。78支罪犯血管植入Firebird支架83枚,69支罪犯血管植入Driver支架72枚。比较2组住院期和1年随访期的临床转归。结果：2组所用支架长度、内径、术中扩张峰值压力及操作时间无明显差异;术后患者达TIMI3级血流的比例相似。住院期间手术成功率无统计学差异（93％对95％,P〉0．05）。1年随访期内Firebird组与Driver组造影随访率分别为539,6和49％,Driver支架组再狭窄率高于Firebird组（24％对2．5％,P〈0．05）,2组均未发生支架内血栓及心源性死亡。结论：国产药物支架对急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死有较好的安全性和临床近、中期疗效。     

Safety and efficacy with drug-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been shown to reduce the need for repeat revascularization compared with bare metal stents (BMS). However, there is little information regarding the safety and long-term efficacy of DES in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DES in patients with AMI. METHODS: Data from 211 consecutive patients with AMI treated with DES were compared with those from 228 consecutive patients with AMI treated with BMS. All patients were treated within 7 days of symptom onset. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events ([MACE]: death, reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization) was evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar for both stent groups. However, patients who received DES had longer lesion lengths (23.0 +/- 12.7 vs. 18.8 +/- 10.6 mm, respectively; p < 0.001) and smaller reference diameters (2.97 +/- 0.52 vs. 3.19 +/- 0.63 mm, respectively, p < 0.001). At 30 days, the incidence rates of MACE (DES vs. BMS: 2.2 vs. 1.9%, p = 1.000) and stent thrombosis (BMS vs. DES: 0.9 vs. 1.7%; p = 0.434) did not differ significantly between the groups. At 1 year, patients with DES had a lower rate of MACE (BMS vs. DES: 14.0 vs. 6.6%; p = 0.011) primarily due to a lower target vessel revascularization rate (BMS vs. DES: 9.6 vs. 4.8%; p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The DES appear to be superior to the BMS in reducing the risk of MACE in patients with AMI.     

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.     

药物支架和裸支架治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者的随访研究

目的 评价药物支架和裸支架治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者疗效和预后方法217例接受了急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者纳入本研究,药物支架组92例、裸支架组125例,收集基线资料并随访6～38个月.结果 裸支架组的平均年龄(64.6±11.9)岁、Killip分级(2、3、4级)为25.9%和支架平均直径为(3.07±0.38)mm,均高于药物支架组(61.2±11.8)岁、12.2%和(2.91±0.40),差异有统计学意义(t=2.09,P=0.037;χ2=5.53,P=0.019;t=2.78,P=0.006),裸支架组平均左心室射血分数(55.4±11.9)%低于药物支架组(60.3±12.8)%,差异有统计学意义(t=-2.57,P=0.011).支架长度[(32.8±16.2)mm、(26.2±11.2)mm]、支架后扩张(45.7%、21.6%)、糖尿病(28.2%、16.0%)药物支架组高于裸支架组(t=-3.54,P=0.001;χ2=13.85,P=0.0002;χ2=4.77,P=0.030).随访期间,主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生36例,药物支架组6例(6.5%),裸支架组30例(24.0%)(χ2=11.70,P＜0.01).结论 急性ST段抬高心肌梗死急诊介入治疗是安全有效的,同裸支架相比药物支架明显降低随访期MACE发生率而改善预后.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

Recently, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the rate of adverse events among selected patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). We present real-world experience from a single center registry evaluating the safety and efficacy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected patients with STEMI using SES. Clinical outcome at 300-day follow-up in two cohorts of 225 consecutive patients who underwent bare metal stent (BMS) (January 2004-February 2005, n = 123) or SES (March 2005-December 2006, n = 102) implantation was examined. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, nonfatal reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). The incidence of short-term MACE was similar between the SES group and BMS group (30-day rate of MACE: 4.9% versus 8.9%, P = 0.30). Angiographically documented stent thrombosis within 30 days after primary PCI was not diagnosed in any patient in the SES group and occurred in 1 patient treated with BMS (0 versus 0.8%, P = 1.0). At 300 days, SES implantation significantly reduced the incidence of MACE (7.8% versus 22.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.71], P = 0.005), mainly due to a marked reduction in the risk of TVR (1.0% versus 17.1%, HR 0.05 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.39], P < 0.001). There was no new onset of documented stent thrombosis between 30 and 300 days in either group. Thus, this real-world registry confirmed the safety and efficacy of SES with remarkably lower rates of TVR and MACE in the setting of primary PCI for unselected patients with STEMI in a real-world scenario.     

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents following successful PCI in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-Label StenT (GHOST) Registry

Background: The long‐term safety and effectiveness of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) beyond 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. Methods: We studied 674 NSTEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with DES (n = 323) or BMS (n = 351). The primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of death or nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST). Secondary end‐points included time to occurrence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE, defined as the composite of death, MI, ST, TVR). Results: The DES and BMS groups were well matched except that DES patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for a longer duration and had smaller final vessel diameter. In survival analysis, at a mean follow‐up of 1333 ± 659 days after PCI, the DES group had similar incidence of death/myocardial infarction (24% vs. 27%, log rank p = 0.23) and ST (4.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.18) as the BMS group. The DES patients had lower incidence of TVR (8.1% vs. 17%, p = 0.0018) but similar MACE (26% vs. 37%, p = 0.31). In multivariable analysis, DES vs. BMS implantation showed no significant impact on death/myocardial infarction [adjusted hazards ratio (HR) 1.0, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.7–1.4], ST (HR 1.7; CI 0.7 – 4.0), or MACE (HR 0.8; CI 0.6 – 1.1). However, TVR was lower in the DES group (HR 0.4; CI 0.3 – 0.7). Conclusion: In patients presenting with NSTEMI, DES implantation appears to be as safe as BMS implantation at long‐term follow‐up. In addition, DES are effective in reducing TVR compared to BMS. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:28–36)     

Drug-Eluting Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention: An Updated Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BackgroundDrug eluting stents (DES) are preferred over bare metal stents (BMS) for native coronary artery revascularization unless contraindicated. However, the preferred stent choice for saphenous venous graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is unclear due to conflicting results.MethodsPubMed, Clinical trials registry and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2018. Seven studies (n = 1639) comparing DES versus BMS in SVG-PCI were included. Endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), in-stent thrombosis, binary in-stent restenosis, and late lumen loss (LLL).ResultsOverall, during a mean follow up of 32.1 months, there was no significant difference in the risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, MI, stent thrombosis, TVR and TLR between DES and BMS. However, short-term follow up (mean 11 months) showed lower rate of MACE (OR 0.66 [0.51, 0.85]; p = 0.002), TVR (OR 0.47 [0.23, 0.97]; p = 0.04) and binary in-stent restenosis (OR 0.14 [0.06, 0.37]; p < 0.0001) in DES as compared with BMS. This benefit was lost on long-term follow up with a mean follow up 35.5 months.ConclusionIn this meta-analysis of SVG-PCI, DES use was associated with similar MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, MI, in-stent thrombosis, TVR and TLR compared with BMS during long-term follow up. There was high incidence of MACE noted in both DES and BMS suggesting a need for exploring novel strategies to treat SVG disease to improve clinical outcomes.     

Percutaneous intervention on the saphenous vein bypass grafts—Long‐term outcomes

Background/Objective : In this era of drug eluting stents (DES), the long‐term outcome of percutaneous intervention (PCI) on saphenous venous grafts (SVG) is unknown. The objective of the study was to compare the long‐term outcomes of DES versus bare metal stent (BMS) in this population and to determine the predictors of outcomes. Methods : We reviewed the medical records of all patients who had PCI performed during January 2003 to February 2005 to obtain data cardiac risk factors, medications at discharge, angiographic details and outcomes. Results : One hundred and nine patient had PCI to SVG; of these, 37 patients received DES and the remaining had BMS. Over a mean follow‐up of 33 months, the PCI using DES was associated with 30% restenosis, 35% target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate of 46% versus 35% restenosis, 38% TVR and 50% MACE rate with BMS. There was no significant difference in long‐term outcome with DES as compared to BMS. Conclusion : There was no difference in the long‐term outcomes of PCI on SVG irrespective of the type of stent used. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in ST elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-label Stent (GHOST) Registry

Background: Multiple randomized trials and observational studies have shown drug‐eluting stents (DES) to be safe and effective at 3‐year follow‐up in stent thrombosis (ST)‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, outcomes data beyond 3–4 years after DES implantation are sparse. Methods: We studied 554 STEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with either DES or bare metal stent (BMS). Primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of ST and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary end‐points were time to occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and discrete events that comprise MACE (death, MI, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcomes of the DES and BMS groups were assessed by survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression. Results: There were 205 (37%) patients who received DES and 349 (63%) patients who received BMS. At a median follow‐up of 41.4 months after PCI, there were no differences in the unadjusted incidence of ST (ST, 3.4 vs. 4.3%, log‐rank P = 0.61) and MI (6.8% vs. 8%, P = 0.61) between DES versus BMS groups, respectively. However, DES implantation was associated with lower unadjusted incidence of death or MI (11% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.0002), MACE (16% vs. 34%, P < 0.0001), death (6.3% vs. 17%, P = 0.0004), and TVR (9.8% vs. 18%, P = 0.008) than BMS implantation. In multivariable analyses, DES implantation was associated with significantly lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR = 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31–0.76], P = 0.0007) than BMS implantation. Conclusion: In our study of STEMI patients, DES implantation was safer than BMS implantation and was associated with lower MACE at long‐term follow‐up. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:118–125)     

中国冠心病患者接受不同支架治疗预后的荟萃分析

目的比较中国冠心病患者置入药物洗脱支架(DES)和裸支架(BMS)或西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)和紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES)之间,临床预后的差别。方法检索数据库,纳入随访时间≥6个月的、比较DES和BMS或SES和PES的临床研究。用STATA 10.0作荟萃分析,比较不同类型支架的临床预后,包括主要心血管不良事件(MACE)、靶病变血运重建(TLR)、靶血管血运重建(TVR)、支架内血栓形成和心肌梗死的发生情况。结果共纳入文献11篇(3780例),随访时间从6个月至3年。与BMS相比,DES可减少MACE(OR=0.471,95%CI0.336～0.662,P<0.001)、减少TVR(OR=0.250,95% CI0.148～0.422,P<0.001),但支架内血栓形成在两组间差异无统计学意义。而SES与PES相比,在MACE、TLR、TVR、支架内血栓、心肌梗死方面差异均无统计学意义。结论药物洗脱支架有效性、安全性高,药物支架中,西罗莫司支架和紫杉醇支架差异无统计学意义。     

Comparison of one-year cardiac events with drug-eluting versus bare metal stent implantation in rescue coronary angioplasty

Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent (BMS) implantation is useful in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and failed thrombolysis. Drug-eluting stent (DESs) are more effective in reducing restenosis compared to BMS. No data are available comparing the clinical outcomes between the 2 types of stents nor has information ever been provided about the predictors of events in patients treated with rescue PCI in the current era. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing rescue PCI with DES implantation compared to BMS implantation and to determine the independent predictors of events during 1 year of follow-up. The study population consisted of 311 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation AMI and evidence of failed fibrinolysis undergoing successful revascularization with DES (n = 134) or BMS (n = 177) implantation. The end point of the present study was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as death, recurrent AMI, and target vessel revascularization. No differences were found in the number of MACE at 1 year of follow-up between the DES and BMS groups (n = 10 and 19, respectively, p = 0.29). The Cox proportional hazards model identified cardiogenic shock (adjusted hazard ratio 7.05, 95% confidence interval 2.08 to 23.9, p = 0.001), age (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.08, p = 0.011), and final minimal lumen diameter (hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.83, p = 0.013) as independent predictors of MACE at 1 year of follow-up. After propensity score adjustments, the predictors did not change. In conclusion, we found no differences between DESs and BMSs with respect to MACE at 1 year of follow-up in patients with AMI treated with rescue PCI. Cardiogenic shock, age, and final minimal luminal diameter were identified as predictors of MACE.