冠状动脉病变患者429例经皮冠状动脉介入术后1年造影随访分析

目的 评价冠状动脉多支血管病变(MVD)通过经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)进行血运重建的长期疗效.方法 2010年3月至2011年5月在第三军医大学附属西南医院成功接受PCI治疗的429例患者,术后约1年进行血管造影随访,并对其心绞痛复发率、造影复查再狭窄率和主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率进行回顾分析.结果 429例PCI患者完全性血运重建病例比率为95.8%,住院期间无心源性死亡病例,其心绞痛复发率、造影复查再狭窄率分别为10.1%、4.4%,MACE主要是1年内再次行血运重建的患者,发生率为3.5%.患者血运重建后心功能、每周心绞痛发作频次均有明显改善,显著提高了患者的生活质量及生存率.结论 PCI进行血运重建是治疗冠心病特别是MVD的有效方法,合理的PCI方案及药物洗脱支架的应用是改善患者远期预后的关键.     

药物洗脱支架对糖尿病血运重建中期临床结果的影响

目的评价药物洗脱支架(DES)对糖尿病患者冠状动脉血运重建结果的影响。方法回顾置入DES糖尿病患者的临床、冠状动脉病变与血运重建资料,并进行临床随访。结果204例糖尿病患者接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)时置入了一个或以上的DES,共置入316枚支架,其中DES254枚。180例患者术后接受了平均为9.3±5(6~26)个月的临床随访(随访率88.2%)。主要不良心脏事件(包括死亡、再梗死和再次血运重建)发生率为3.9%(8/204)。18例患者平均于PCI术后6.7(5.5~10)个月接受造影复查(造影随访率8.8%),经DES处理的病变无1例出现再狭窄。结论糖尿病患者使用DES安全有效,能显著降低再狭窄率和靶病变再次血运重建率。     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉小血管病变的疗效分析

目的 通过分析比较裸金属支架（BMS）与药物洗脱支架[DES，包括雷帕霉素（Cypher）支架和紫杉醇（TAXUS）支架]治疗冠状动脉小血管病变疗效的差异，为DES治疗多支及单支小血管病变冠心病提供依据。方法连续入选2002年12月至2005年5月沈阳军区总医院首次接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）、靶血管为小血管病变且达到完全血运重建的486例患者，其中多支小血管病变（多支）150例。分为BMS组214例（多支63例）、Cypher组140例（多支46例）和TAXUS组132例（多支41例），对比分析各组患者住院期间及随访6个月的临床情况。结果3组患者冠脉病变特点、PCI成功率及住院期间主要不良心脏事件（MACE）发生率等指标差异均无显著性（P〉0．05）。冠脉造影随访显示，两个DES组再狭窄率均明显低于BMS（Cypher组4．9％，TAXUS组7．5％对BMS组29．2％，P〈0．05），随访期间MACE发生率亦明显低于BMS（Cypher组2．9％，TAXUS组3．9％对BMS组12、0％，P〈0．01）。进一步分析多支小血管病例，发现两个DES组的再狭窄率及随访期间MACE发生率仍然明显低于BMS组（再狭窄率Cypher组6．7％，TAXUS组7．1％对BMS组37．5％，P〈0．05；MACE发生率Cypher组4、1％。TAXUS组4．8％对BMS组21．O％，P〈0．05）。结论Cypher和TAXUS支架治疗小血管病变安全可行，疗效显著，治疗多支小血管病变可得到相同的疗效。     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉小血管病变的疗效分析

目的通过分析比较裸金属支架(BMS)与药物洗脱支架[DES,包括雷帕霉素(Cypher)支架和紫杉醇(TAXUS)支架]治疗冠状动脉小血管病变疗效的差异,为DES治疗多支及单支小血管病变冠心病提供依据。方法连续入选2002年12月至2005年5月沈阳军区总医院首次接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)、靶血管为小血管病变且达到完全血运重建的486例患者,其中多支小血管病变(多支)150例。分为BMS组214例(多支63例)、Cypher组140例(多支46例)和TAXUS组132例(多支41例),对比分析各组患者住院期间及随访6个月的临床情况。结果3组患者冠脉病变特点、PCI成功率及住院期间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率等指标差异均无显著性(P>0·05)。冠脉造影随访显示,两个DES组再狭窄率均明显低于BMS(Cypher组4·9%,TAXUS组7·5%对BMS组29·2%,P<0·05),随访期间MACE发生率亦明显低于BMS(Cypher组2·9%,TAXUS组3·9%对BMS组12·0%,P<0·01)。进一步分析多支小血管病例,发现两个DES组的再狭窄率及随访期间MACE发生率仍然明显低于BMS组(再狭窄率Cypher组6·7%,TAXUS组7·1%对BMS组37·5%,P<0·05;MACE发生率Cypher组4·1%,TAXUS组4·8%对BMS组21·0%,P<0·05)。结论Cypher和TAXUS支架治疗小血管病变安全可行,疗效显著,治疗多支小血管病变可得到相同的疗效。     

冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者冠状动脉多支病变PCI与CABG术后5年随访

目的比较冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病(冠心病)合并2型糖尿病冠状动脉多支病变患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)置入药物涂层支架(DES)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后远期疗效。方法连续入选2002年12月至2008年12月住院期间的冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者,并成功行择期血运重建的多支冠状动脉病变患者,分为CABG组(n=270),DES组(n=285)。随访5年,从术后30 d开始到5年止结束,随访包括全因死亡、心源性死亡、非致死性卒中、非致死性心肌梗死、心绞痛复发和再次血运重建的主要不良心脑血管事件(MACE)。结果入选患者随访率100%。CABG组与DES组两组间5年全因死亡率(1.11%vs.1.40%)、心源性死亡率(0%vs.0%)、非致死性卒中发生率(2.22%vs.2.81%)无统计学差异(P0.05)。DES组非致死性心肌梗死发生率(3.15%)、心绞痛复发率(17.89%)、再次血运重建率(12.28%)均高于CABG组(分别为1.11,5.56%,0.74%),差异均有统计学意义(P0.05~0.01)。结论多支冠状动脉病变合并2型糖尿病患者CABG与PCI治疗5年生存率无明显差异,但多支冠状动脉病变合并2型糖尿病患者DES支架置入远期心绞痛复发率、再次血运重建率,非致死性心肌梗死发生率高于CABG组。     

雷帕霉素洗脱支架治疗多支冠状动脉病变的临床研究

目的:探讨多支冠状动脉病变患者置入雷帕霉素洗脱支架(Cypher支架)预防再狭窄的疗效及安全性。方法:2001年12月-2004年5月连续725例接受多支冠状动脉支架置入术的冠心病患者,剔除急性心肌梗死及再次血运重建患者。Cypher支架组187例,普通金属支架(普通支架)组538例。比较两组支架术后的近期及远期结果。结果:除糖尿病患者比例在Cypher支架组较高外,两组患者冠心病危险因素、心功能、冠状动脉病变严重程度、介入手术成功率及并发症发生率均无显著差异。690例患者平均随访(18.8±11.7)个月,Cypher支架组和普通支架组造影随访率分别为52.4%vs58.2%(P>0.05)。尽管Cypher支架组患者冠心病危险因素多、平均年龄63.5岁、不稳定性心绞痛占66.3%、糖尿病占41.6%、3支血管病变占57.8%、B2/C型复杂病变占86.2%,但造影复查再狭窄率和主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率均明显低于普通支架组(3.1%vs16.6%,5.5%vs16.7%,P均<0.01),心功能改善率高于普通支架组(63.1%vs30.6%,P<0.01)。两组完全血运重建率无显著差异(81.3%vs86.8%,P>0.05),但发生MACE的患者中,Cypher支架组不完全血运重建者比例高于普通支架组(60.0%vs23.5%,P<0.05);两组发生MACE的患者中完全血运重建患者比例均低于本组总的完全血运重建率(Cypher支架组:40.0%     

国产药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉多支病变临床随访

目的:评价冠状动脉多支病变患者置入≥4枚国产药物洗脱支架(DES)的疗效.方法:2004-11至2006-11就诊于我科接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的冠心病患者1 127例,其中185例为置入支架≥4枚的多支病变患者,随访院内外主要心脏不良事件(MACE)包括心性死亡、急性心肌梗死和靶病变再次血运重建的发生率.结果:处理冠状动脉病变720处,其中复杂病变525处,置入国产DES 836枚.院内1例高龄患者术后常规抗凝治疗死于脑出血,其余184例临床随访42(30～54)个月,发生急性心肌梗死4例,靶病变再次血运重建12例,院外MACE发生率8.6%.冠状动脉造影随访108例,DES边缘再狭窄5例,支架内再狭窄9例,再狭窄率13.0%.结论:冠状动脉多支病变患者置入≥14枚国产DES长期随访效果满意.     

药物洗脱支架与切割球囊预扩张后置入金属裸支架治疗前降支开口病变的近、远期临床疗效比较

目的 探讨药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗前降支开口病变的近、远期临床疗效,并与早期应用切割球囊预扩张后(CBA)置入金属裸支架(BMS)的近、远期临床疗效进行比较.方法 自2003年11月至2005年5月采用DES对51例连续前降支开口病变的患者进行介入治疗,选自2000年5月至2003年11月应用CBA+BMS治疗前降支开口病变的连续50例患者作为对照组,要求所有患者在介入治疗后6～8个月进行冠状动脉造影复查,DES组与CBA+BMS组患者分别完成了2年和4年的临床随访.结果 在DES组中1例于住院期间发生急性心肌梗死,住院期间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率为1.96%(1/51),29例完成了6～8个月的冠状动脉造影复查,再狭窄发生率为10.3%(3/29).在2年临床随访中1例死亡,靶病变重建4例,MACE发生率为9.8%(5/51).在CBA+BMS组中住院期间无心脏事件,28例完成了6～8个月的冠状动脉造影复查,再狭窄发生率为17.9%(5/28).2年临床随访中1例死亡,行靶病变重建5例,MACE发生率为12%(6/50).结论 在2年的临床随访中,支架内再狭窄、MACE发生率两组比较差异均无统计学意义,研究结果 提示无论是采用DES还是CBA+BMS治疗前降支开口病变均有良好的近、远期疗效.     

支架内再狭窄病变再次介入治疗后造影复查结果分析

目的:评价支架内再狭窄(ISR)病变再次行介入治疗后的造影复查结果,试图寻找合适的治疗方法。方法:行冠状动脉再狭窄病变介入治疗后进行冠状动脉造影复查的患者58例,分析其临床资料及冠状动脉造影图像。根据再次介入治疗方法不同分为置入药物支架(DES)和非DES治疗(包括单纯球囊扩张、双导丝球囊或切割球囊扩张、放射治疗和裸支架置入)组,分析再狭窄率及主要心血管不良事件(MACE)发生情况。结果:共涉及58处ISR病变,前降支病变占56.90%;70.69%为裸支架的ISR病变;32.76%的病变为支架内局限性狭窄,支架内弥漫性狭窄病变占18.97%,10.24%为支架完全闭塞病变;其中50%的ISR患者接受了病变处DES治疗,20.69%接受了单纯的普通球囊扩张;复查造影时间为平均(13.12±8.03)个月;ISR病变DES组发生病变处再狭窄和发生MACE情况明显低于接受其他治疗组(再狭窄发生率17.24%:51.72%,P<0.05;MACE发生率20.69%:51.72%,P<0.05);对有可能影响ISR病变介入治疗后再次发生ISR的各种因素进行Logistic分析可见,再次治疗的方法是再次发生ISR的独立危险因素。结论:对于ISR病变置入DES近中期效果明显优于其他介入治疗方法。     

老年人多支冠状动脉病变的介入治疗

目的评估老年多支冠状动脉病变患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的疗效和安全性。方法回顾性对照分析沈阳军区总医院677例年龄≥60岁(老年组)和547例年龄<60岁(非老年组)接受PCI并获得完全血运重建的多支冠状动脉病变患者的临床资料、冠状动脉病变特点、手术成功率、并发症及近、远期临床随访结果。结果与非老年组比较,老年组女性、合并左主干病变、慢性闭塞病变、>20mm长病变、显著钙化病变和复杂病变(B2+C 型)患者的比例及平均植入支架数均较多。两组PCI手术成功率及手术并发症发生率无显著性差异。老年组住院期间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率(3．8％ vs 1.8％)及总死亡率(3．0％ vs 1．1％)均高于非老年组(P<0．05)。平均随访(11．9±3．8)个月,两组总随访率、造影复查再狭窄率、心绞痛复发率、随访患者MACE发生率及总死亡率均无显著性差异。结论老年组多支冠状动脉病变患者PCI后住院期间MACE发生率及总死亡率高于非老年组,但其 PCI成功率、手术并发症、长期临床疗效与非老年组患者相似,提示PCI是治疗老年多支冠状动脉病变安全、有效的方法。     

Drug-eluting stent-supported percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total coronary occlusion.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the clinical and angiographic outcomes after drug-eluting stent (DES)-supported percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO). BACKGROUND: There are few data about the efficacy of DES-supported PCI for CTO. METHODS: All consecutive patients who had a sirolimus-eluting stent or a paclitaxel-eluting stent implanted for CTO from December 2003 to December 2004 were analyzed. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with DES were compared with a case-matched control group of patients treated with bare metal stents (BMS) in the 12 months before the routine use of DES. RESULTS: Successful DES-supported PCI was performed in 92 patients and 104 CTO. The case-matched control group consisted of 26 patients and 27 CTO successfully treated with BMS. There were no differences between groups in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Stent length in the DES group was higher as compared with that of BMS group (51+/-28 mm vs. 40+/-19 mm, P=0.073). The 6-month major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was lower in the DES group as compared with that of BMS group (9.8% vs. 23%, P=0.072). The angiographic follow-rate was 80% in the DES group and 81% in the BMS group. The 6-month restenosis rate was 19% in the DES group and 45% in the BMS group (P<0.001). By multivariate analysis, it was found that in the DES group, the only predictors of restenosis were stented segment length (OR 1.031, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, P=0.009) and a target vessel reference diameter<2.5 mm (OR 6.48, 95% CI 1.51-27.83, P=0.012), while the only predictor of MACE was stent length (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08, P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: DES implantation for CTO decreases the risk of mid-term restenosis and MACE. Small vessels and diffuse disease requiring the implantation of multiple stents and very long stents for full coverage of the target lesion are still associated with a relatively high risk of restenosis.     

Comparing long‐term outcomes between drug‐eluting and bare‐metal stents in the treatment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy

Background: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is the leading cause of death after the first year following heart transplantation. We compared restenosis rates, mortality, and other major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between transplant recipients treated with DES and BMS for CAV. Methods: All patients from our heart transplant registry undergoing PCI with stenting for CAV were identified. Procedural data, baseline clinical characteristics, yearly coronary angiography, cardiac events and death were prospectively collected. Primary outcome was in‐stent restenosis (ISR). Secondary outcomes were in‐segment restenosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), all‐cause mortality and combined MACE. Results: 36 lesions in 25 patients treated with DES were compared with 31 BMS‐treated lesions in 19 patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. 12‐month incidence of ISR was 0% with DES vs. 12.9% with BMS, P = 0.03. Over mean (±standard error) follow‐up of 51.1 ± 7.5 months this difference was significant for vessels ≤3 mm in diameter, hazard ratio (HR) DES vs. BMS 0.37 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.95) P = 0.037; but not for vessels >3 mm P = 0.45. However, there was no difference in overall longterm patency because of similar rates of in‐segment restenosis between DES and BMS, HR 1.13 (95% CI 0.43 to 2.97) P = 0.81. Also, the rates of TVR, death from any cause and combined MACE were similar; log rank P 0.88, 0.67, and 0.85, respectively. Conclusion: This study suggests that after PCI for cardiac allograft vasculopathy, despite a lower in‐stent restenosis rate in DES compared with BMS, in‐segment restenosis and clinical cardiac endpoints are similar. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Drug-eluting stents in the treatment of intermediate lesions: pooled analysis from four randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: To address the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of intermediate lesions, we performed a pooled analysis of four randomized DES versus bare-metal stent (BMS) trials and assessed outcomes among patients with intermediate lesions. BACKGROUND: Before the introduction of DES, intermediate coronary lesions were commonly managed based on physiologic or anatomic assessment of lesion severity. The DES may challenge this paradigm. METHODS: The study population involved 167 of 2,478 randomized patients (6.7%) with intermediate lesions (diameter stenosis <50% [mean 44%] by quantitative coronary angiography) from the Sirolimus-coated Bx Velocity Balloon Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients with De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions (SIRIUS), TAXUS-IV, and the First and Second First Use to Underscore Restenosis Reduction with Everolimus (FUTURE-I and -II) trials. End points examined included early (in-hospital and 30-day) and late (1-year) major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, and follow-up angiographic restenosis. RESULTS: Patients with intermediate lesions randomized to DES versus BMS had low rates of 30-day MACE (1.1% vs. 4.0% respectively; p = 0.22). At one-year follow-up, patients treated with DES versus BMS had similar rates of cardiac death (0% vs. 2.7%, respectively; p = 0.11) and MI (3.4% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.49) but markedly lower rates of TVR (3.4% vs. 20.3%; p = 0.0004), MACE (5.6% vs. 25.4%; p = 0.0003), and binary angiographic restenosis (1.8% vs. 34.0%; p < 0.0001). No patient in either group developed stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMS, treatment of intermediate lesions with DES appears safe and results in a marked reduction in clinical and angiographic restenosis. The efficacy of DES may require a reevaluation of current treatment paradigms for intermediate lesions.     

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.     

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.     

The risks and benefits of drug-eluting stents in the setting of STEMI

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents the treatment of choice in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In randomized trials excluding STEMI patients, using drug-eluting stents (DES) significantly reduced angiographic restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared with bare metal stents (BMS); however, concerns exist regarding an increased follow-up incidence of stent thrombosis after DES implantation. This complication, which is associated with higher mortality and morbidity rates, may be more frequent among STEMI patients receiving DES versus BMS. Various registries, randomized trials, and two recent meta-analyses on patients undergoing primary PCI have shown that using DES is safe and is associated with significantly reduced rates of restenosis and repeat intervention without an increased risk of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis at intermediate-term follow-up. However, large trials with hard clinical end points and longer follow-up are needed before routine DES use can be recommended in patients undergoing primary PCI.     

药物洗脱支架对完全闭塞性病变介入治疗预后影响的评估

目的比较对于完全性闭塞病变采用药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架的近期和远期预后。方法选择我院近期连续接受置入药物洗脱支架(DES)或金属裸支架(BMS)治疗,并且进行冠状动脉造影随访的155例存在完全闭塞病变的冠心病患者。患者在支架术后6个月左右接受冠状动脉造影随访。结果共155例患者(138名男性,17名女性)159处靶病变置入232枚支架完成造影随访,其中慢性完全性闭塞65例,占41.9%。其中C型病变占总数的85.4%。在患者基本条件方面,DES组2型糖尿病比例要多于BMS组(33.8%比18.5%,P=0.030)。在病变基本条件方面,DES组和BMS组C型病变分别占89.6%和72.0%(P=0.005),DES组病变更为复杂。DES组慢性完全闭塞病变比例明显高于BMS组(60.3%比24.4%,P<0.001)。DES组和BMS组的支架长度和病变长度没有差别。DES组参考血管直径小于BMS组[(2.72±0.36)mm比(2.96±0.52)mm,P=0.001]。6个月随访结果显示支架再狭窄DES组明显低于BMS组(15.6%比41.5%,P<0.001)。DES组支架再狭窄更多为局限性(58.3%比17.6%,P<0.001)。DES组的靶病变血管重建率明显低于BMS组(5.8%比19.9%,P=0.001)。病变内晚期腔径丢失DES明显小于BMS[(0.36±0.63)mm比(1.04±0.70)mm,P<0.001]。晚期支架内血栓DES有2例,BMS为0。DES组有1例死亡。术后主要心脏不良事件发生率两组分别是1.4%和11.1%,DES组显著低于BMS组(P=0.032)。结论我们的研究发现对于完全闭塞性病变的治疗,DES有着良好的治疗效果,比BMS有着明显减低的再狭窄率、靶病变血管重建率,并且在随访期间患者有着更少的心血管事件。     

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.