药物洗脱支架治疗糖尿病多支冠脉病变

目的 探讨药物洗脱支架治疗糖尿病多支冠脉病变患者的安全性和可行性,并与冠脉旁路移植术的疗效进行比较.方法 150例糖尿病多支冠脉病变患者,84例行药物洗脱支架置入术(DES组),66例行冠脉旁路移植术(CABG组).比较两组住院期和随访期不良心血管事件(死亡、心肌梗死、再次血管重建术和脑血管意外)的发生情况.结果 两组的大多数临床和冠脉病变特征相似,CABG组左主干病变(30%比4%,P=0.001)和三支病变(70%比54%,P=0.045)显著增多,完全血管重建化率更高(82%比67%,P=0.037).住院期CABG组术后病死率显著增高(6.1%比0%,P=0.022),但两组总体不良心血管事件发生率仍相似(2.4%比9.1%,P=0.069).在平均(18±8)个月随访期,DES组再次血管重建化率显著增加(13.1%比3.0%,P=0.03),导致总体不良心血管事件发生率增高(21.4%比9.1%,P=0.041),其中相当部分(45%)由于病变进展所致.结论 药物洗脱支架置入术应用在糖尿病多支冠脉病变患者中安全可行,缩小了再次血管重建化发生率上与冠脉旁路移植术的差距.     

糖尿病多支冠状动脉病变患者不同血管重建疗效的比较

目的:评价对糖尿病多支冠状动脉病变患者的裸支架(BMS)置入、药物洗脱支架(DES)置入和冠状动脉搭桥手术(CABG)3种不同血管重建的疗效。方法:选择接受血管重建治疗的糖尿病伴多支冠状动脉病变患者427例,比较其BMS、DES和CABG不同治疗方法的疗效和随访2年的临床结果。结果:BMS、DES和CABG3组间住院时期的不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义。2年随访结果中,BMS组、DES组再次血管重建率分别为17.6%、10.4%,均显著高于CABG组的1.9%(P<0.01);BMS组的总MACCE发生率为23.1%,显著高于CABG组的10.7%(P<0.01),而DES的总MACCE发生率与CABG组相比差异无统计学意义。结论:糖尿病多支血管病变患者置入BMS后再次血管重建率和总MACCE发生率显著高于CABG,而DES的中期临床疗效并不逊于CABG。     

药物洗脱支架置入与冠状动脉搭桥治疗糖尿病患者冠状动脉多支病变近中期疗效的比较

目的:比较雷帕霉素洗脱支架(DES)置入术与冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)治疗糖尿病并发冠状动脉多支病变患者的近中期疗效.方法:回顾性分析2003-07-01-2004-06-30入院并接受DES置入或CABG治疗的糖尿病患者490例的基础临床资料、院内及院外随访资料,比较不同冠状动脉血运重建方式对糖尿病多支病变患者临床结果的影响.结果:250例患者接受DES置入(DES组),240例患者选择CABG治疗(CABG组).与DES组相比,CABG组患者的冠状动脉病变更为复杂,左主干病变以及慢性闭塞病变的比例较高;DES组弥漫长病变以及再狭窄病变的比例较高.CABG组与DES组院内不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)发生率差异无统计学意义(3.3%:1.2%,P＞0.05).共有440例患者接受了不同形式的随访,随访率为89.7%.2组患者随访病死率、非致死性脑卒中以及非致死性心肌梗死的发生率均差异无统计学意义; 但DES组患者需要再次血运重建的比例明显高于CABG组(11.3%:1.9%,P<0.01);DES组患者随访MACCE发生率高于CABG组(17.4%:8.6%,P<0.01).再次血运重建比例较高是导致DES组随访不良事件增加的主要原因.结论:糖尿病多支病变患者CABG后近中期MACCE发生率低于DES置入术.     

药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗冠状动脉多支病变的比较

目的比较药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗冠状动脉复杂多支病变的疗效。方法连续入选行血运重建治疗的冠心病多支病变患者200名,随机分为经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)组和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)组,每组100例。PCI组和CABG组中分别有合并糖尿病者(糖尿病亚组)27例和25例。观察术后1年内主要心脑血管不良事件(死亡、脑卒中、非致死性心肌梗死、靶血管再次血运重建)、再狭窄、心绞痛复发发生率,血浆肌酸激酶水平和PCI组支架内血栓形成发生率。结果两组患者的基线特征差异无统计学意义。PCI组与CABG组1个月、6个月和1年的主要心脑血管不良事件发生率分别为4.0%、7.0%、12.0%比6.0%、9.0%、15.2%(P>0.05);心绞痛复发率分别为2.0%、4.0%、6.0%比1.0%、3.0%、5.1%(P>0.05)。术后1年再狭窄率分别为11.3%比13.2%(P>0.05)。PCI组术后亚急性血栓形成率1.0%。PCI组和CABG组术后肌酸激酶MB型同工酶升高的患者比例分别为26%比82%(P<0.05)。PCI组糖尿病亚组与CABG组糖尿病亚组1个月、6个月和1年的严重心脑血管不良事件发生率分别为7.4%、11.1%、18.5%比8.0%、16.0%、24.0%(P>0.05)。结论药物洗脱支架时代PCI与CABG治疗冠状动脉多支病变的近、远期疗效相近,对于合并糖尿病的患者同样有效。     

老年多支血管病变患者置入药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术后近远期临床结果

目的:本研究旨在比较老年(年龄≥75岁)稳定性冠心病合并多支血管病变患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)置入药物洗脱支架(DES)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的近远期临床结果。方法:本研究于2003年7月至2006年12月,连续入选年龄≥75岁稳定性冠心病合并多支血管病变患者363例,在我院行PCI置入DES(n=269)或CABG(n=94)治疗。主要终点为24个月时主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE),次要终点为24个月时全因死亡及非致死性心肌梗死(MI)、脑血管事件和再次血运重建以及全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件。结果:住院期间,CABG组的病死率(7.4%vs.1.9%,P=0.023)和非致死性MI的发生率(3.2%vs.0,P=0.023),明显高于DES组,CABG组的MACCE的发生率也明显高于DES组(10.6%vs.1.9%,P=0.001)。多因素回归分析结果显示:24个月时,CABG组和DES组的主要终点事件的风险未见明显差异[22.3%vs.15.2%,风险比(HR)=1.62,95%CI 0.63～3.31,P=0.379],两组的全因死亡、心源性死亡、非致死性MI、脑血管事件和再次血运重建的风险也没有明显差异;CABG组全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件的风险明显高于DES组(19.1%vs.8.2%,HR 3.87,95%CI:1.24～12.37,P=0.009)。结论:本研究提示,与DES相比,CABG可能会增加75岁以上多支血管病变患者的远期全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件的风险,而未降低再次血运重建和MACCE。     

药物洗脱支架置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗糖尿病合并多支病变的近中期疗效分析

目的比较药物洗脱支架(DES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗糖尿病合并多支病变患者住院时和12个月的临床效果。方法入选2003年7月至2005年12月北京安贞医院645例糖尿病合并多支病变进行血运重建的患者,比较CABG和置入DES组全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死(M I)、脑血管事件、再次血运重建以及总的心脑血管不良事件(MACCE)发生率。结果 CABG组更多合并有左主干病变、慢性闭塞病变、C型病变和3支病变,完全血运重建较高(P均<0.001);DES组和CABG组总死亡率(P=0.460)、心脏性死亡和非致死性M I复合终点事件(P=0.076)的发生率差异无统计学意义;DES组MACCE、再次血运重建发生率明显增高(P均<0.001)。结论糖尿病合并多支病变患者12个月时CABG有较低MACCE,与再次血运重建发生率较低有关;DES有较高的再次血运重建发生率,与糖尿病较高的再狭窄率和PC I较低的完全血运重建率有关。     

药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干病变的临床疗效对比

目的:评估药物洗脱支架(DES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗无保护左主干病变的临床疗效。方法:分析2003-10-2010-09期间行血运重建的282例无保护左主干患者的临床资料,其中接受DES者143例(DES组),接受CABG者139例(CABG组),比较2组住院期和随访期心脑血管不良事件(死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、脑卒中和再次血运重建,即MACCE)的发生情况。结果:DES组手术成功率为100%,住院期间1例发生非致死性心肌梗死,无一例死亡、脑血管意外或需再次血运重建;CABG组手术成功率为95.7%,住院期间有1例发生非致死性急性心肌梗死,无一例需再次血运重建,共有6例死亡;CABG组住院期死亡率明显高于DES组(4.3%∶0,P<0.05),住院期CABG组总MACCE发生率也明显高于DES组(5.0%∶0.7%,P<0.05);随访期平均(17±8)个月,DES组临床心绞痛复发率和再次血运重建率较CABG组有增高趋势(7.8%∶2.7%,7.0%∶1.8%),但差异无统计学意义,其总MACCE发生率显著高于CABG组(14.8%∶7.1%,P<0.05);剔除新发病变及病变进展病例后,2组总MACCE发生率(7.8%∶7.1%)差异无统计学意义。结论:DES治疗无保护左主干病变安全和有效,可以作为CABG的一种替代治疗手段。     

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。     

药物洗脱支架和冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干病变的疗效分析

背景冠状动脉无保护左主干病变(ULMCA)在冠脉病变患者中风险最高,预后最差,冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)能显著降低死亡率,延长患者生存期,故一直被认为是治疗冠脉无保护左主干病变的金标准。但随着冠脉介入技术的进步,药物洗脱支架(DES)能显著降低支架置入后再狭窄的风险和再介入的比例,因此也成为无保护左主干病变的治疗方法之一,而冠脉搭桥作为左主干病变治疗金标准的的地位正日益受到挑战。目的比较药物洗脱支架(DES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)对冠状动脉无保护左主干病变患者的近期及远期疗效。方法回顾性收集2006年12月到2009年12月在苏州大学附属第一人民医院接受治疗的49例冠状动脉左主干狭窄患者的临床资料,其中26例置入药物洗脱支架(DES组),23例患者接受了冠脉旁路移植术(CABG组),记录两组患者围手术期、术后6月到3年的主要心脑血管不良事件(MAC-CE)发生率。结果 (1)两组患者一般临床特征比较无统计学意义;(2)平均随访(16.4±8.8)个月,DES组与CABG组的MACCE发生率分别为11.5%及13.0%,P>0.05;(3)DES组与CABG组术后2年无事件生存率分别为78.8%及85.0%,P>0.05。结论药物洗脱支架置入对于无保护左主干病变患者是安全、有效、可行的,有着与冠脉搭桥相似的近、远期疗效,但对于左主干累及分叉病变者,DES组因较高的血运重建率而疗效略差于CABG。     

冠心病合并糖尿病患者冠状动脉旁路移植术围手术期的处理

目的:研究伴冠心病合并糖尿病患者冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)围手术期的处理。方法:以2000年1月至2006年5月的189例冠心病行CABG患者为研究对象,按是否同时合并有糖尿病分为糖尿病组(56例)和无糖尿病组(133例),对比两组临床特点,搭桥支数,术后处理及术后并发症。结果:冠心病合并糖尿病患者冠脉病变广泛而严重(P<0.01),搭桥4支的比例明显高于非糖尿病组(56.3%∶19.63%,P<0.01)),术后并发症的发生率明显高于非糖尿病例组(P<0.01)。结论:冠心病合并糖尿病患者较无糖尿病患者冠脉病变更加严重,合并症更多,需认真、积极对待。     

无保护左主干病变冠状动脉搭桥术与雷帕霉素洗脱支架治疗的对比研究

目的:回顾性分析无保护左主干病变患者使用雷帕霉素洗脱支架(DES)的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与冠状动脉旁路移植手术(CABG)治疗的中、远期疗效,并探讨应用SYNTAX SCORE来评估病变风险与临床事件的相关性。方法:本研究回顾性收集了176例无保护左主干病变患者,其中CABG组80例,PCI-DES组96例。收集患者的基本情况、左主干病变特点及SYNTAX评分、CABG和PCI手术情况,随访患者术后3年的主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)的发生率。结果:术后3年随访,PCI-DES组与CABG组的MACCE发生率及无MACCE生存率比较差异无统计学意义,但PCI组靶血管再次血运重建率(TVR)明显高于CABG组(P<0.05)。用SYNTAX SCORE把PCI-DES和CABG两组患者分为高积分组(≥30.0)和低积分组(<30.0):高积分组,术后3年PCI-DES亚组MACCE事件发生率高于CABG亚组(23.53%∶18.05%,P<0.05),无MACCE事件生存率低于CABG亚组(51.47%∶70.83%,P<0.05)。低积分组,术后3年MACCE事件发生率CABG亚组高于PCI-DES亚组(12.50%∶7.14%,P>0.05),而无MACCE事件生存率低于PCI-DES亚组(75.00%∶82.14%,P<0.05)。结论:PCI-DES与CABG治疗无保护左主干病变患者总体疗效相似。用SYNTAX SCORE指导无保护左主干病变血管重建方式的选择有重要价值,但在不同的患者人群中,仍应结合临床特征和冠状动脉病变特点选择恰当的血运重建术。     

Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary disease

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) constitute a major breakthrough in restenosis prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study compared the clinical outcomes of PCI using DES versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) in real-world. METHODS: From January 2003 to December 2004, 466 consecutive patients with MVD underwent revascularization, 235 by PCI with DES and 231 by CABG. The study end-point was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) at the first 30 days after procedure and during follow-up. RESULTS: Most preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups, but left main disease (24.7% vs 2.6%, P<0.001) and three-vessel disease (65% vs 54%, P = 0.02) were more prevalent in CABG group. The number of coronary lesions was also greater in CABG group (3.7 +/- 1.1 vs 3.3 +/- 1.1, P<0.001). Despite higher early morbidity (3.9% vs 0.8%, P = 0.03) associated with CABG, there were no significant differences in composite MACEs at the first 30 days between the two groups. During follow-up (mean 25+/-8 months), the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular event was similar in both groups (PCI 6.3% vs CABG 5.6%, P = 0.84). However, bypass surgery still afforded a lower need for repeat revascularization (2.8% vs 10.4%, p = 0.001). Consequently, overall MACE rate (14.5% vs 7.9%, P = 0.03) remained higher after PCI. CONCLUSION: PCI with DES is a safe and feasible alternative to CABG for selected patients with MVD. The reintervention gap was further narrowed in the era of DES. Aside from restenosis, progression of disease needs to receive substantial emphasis.     

Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery with percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of consecutive, selected patients treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. BACKGROUND: Although recent data suggest that PCI with DES provides better clinical outcomes compared to bare-metal stenting for ULMCA disease, there is a paucity of data comparing PCI with DES to CABG. METHODS: Since April 2003, when DES first became available at our institution, 123 patients underwent CABG, and 50 patients underwent PCI with DES for ULMCA disease. RESULTS: High-risk patients (Parsonnet score >15) comprised 46% of the CABG group and 64% of the PCI group (p = 0.04). The 30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate for CABG and PCI was 17% and 2% (p < 0.01), respectively. The mean follow-up was 6.7 +/- 6.2 months in the CABG group and 5.6 +/- 3.9 months in the PCI group (p = 0.26). The estimated MACCE-free survival at six months and one year was 83% and 75% in the CABG group versus 89% and 83% in the PCI group (p = 0.20). By multivariable Cox regression, Parsonnet score, diabetes, and CABG were independent predictors of MACCE. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher percentage of high-risk patients, PCI with DES for ULMCA disease was not associated with an increase in immediate or medium-term complications compared with CABG. Our data suggest that a randomized comparison between the two revascularization strategies for ULMCA may be warranted.     

PCI versus CABG for multivessel coronary disease in diabetics

Objectives: To explore the clinical performance of a strategy of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with multivessel disease (MVD) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), when it is based on clinical judgment. Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for poor outcome after PCI. However, PCI may result in better outcome if the choice of revascularization (PCI versus CABG) is based on the physician decision, rather than randomization. Limited experiences have compared revascularization by DES‐PCI versus CABG in DM patients with MVD. Methods: From August 2004 to August 2005, 220 consecutive DM patients with MVD underwent DES‐PCI (93) or CABG (127) at our Institution. The type of revascularization was dependent on patient and/or physician choice. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) included death, myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stroke. Results: Compared with PCI patients, CABG patients had higher prevalence of 3‐vessel disease (P < 0.001), significant LAD involvement (P < 0.001), presence of total occlusions (P = 0.04), collateral circulation (P < 0.001). At 2‐year follow‐up, MACCE were not different between CABG group and DES‐PCI group (OR 1.2; P = 0.6) and, only when the clinical judgment on the revascularization choice was excluded at propensity analysis, DES‐PCI increased the risk of 24‐month MACCE in total population (OR 1.8; P = 0.04). Conclusions: For patients with DM and MVD, a clinical judgment‐based revascularization by DES‐PCI is not associated with worse 2‐year outcome compared with CABG. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

多支冠状动脉病变患者1911例PCI二年疗效

目的评价多支冠状动脉病变（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1995年6月2003年12月连续2028例在我院成功接受PCI的MVD患者,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）的发生率进行回顾分析。结果2028例MVD患者,完全性血运重建率86.2%（1748/2028）,住院期间共死亡26例（总病死率1.3%）,对存活出院的2002例患者中的1911例随访24个月,随访率95.5%,其心绞痛复发率、造影复查再狭窄率和MACE发生率分别为10.7%、14.6%、25.4%,其中1754例植入普通金属支架（BMS）,157例植入药物洗脱支架（DES）。尽管DES组患者冠心病危险因素多、病变程度复杂,不稳定心绞痛占61.8%、糖尿病占41.4%、慢性完全闭塞病变（CTO）占37.6%、3支病变占58.0%,但心绞痛复发率、造影复查再狭窄率和MACE发生率均显著低于BMS组（分别为4.5%vs11.2%,3.2%vs15.7%,8.9%vs26.9%,均P<0.01）。结论PCI进行血运重建是治疗MVD的有效方法,但仍存在BMS支架术后不良事件发生率高,DES用于治疗MVD具有更好的长期疗效。     

Late loss of early benefit from drug-eluting stents when compared with bare-metal stents and coronary artery bypass surgery: 3 years follow-up of the ERACI III registry.

Aims: Long-term benefit from coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES) relative to bare metal stents (BMS) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has not been established. One year follow-up of the ERACI III registry study showed better outcome with DES. To compare major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates in patients with multivessel cardiovascular disease (CVD) who received DES with those patients treated with BMS or CABG in the ERACI II trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with multivessel CVD who met the ERACI II trial, clinical and angiographic inclusion criteria were treated with DES and enrolled in the ERACI III registry. The primary endpoint was 3-year MACCE. ERACI III-DES patients (n = 225) were compared with the BMS (n = 225) and CABG (n = 225) arms of ERACI II. Patients treated with DES were older, more often smokers, more often high risk by euroSCORE and less frequently had unstable angina. They also had higher incidence of type C lesions and received more stents than the BMS-treated cohort. Three year MACCE was lower in ERACI III-DES (22.7%) than in ERACI II-BMS (29.8%, P = 0.015), mainly reflecting less target vessel revascularization (14.2 vs. 24.4%, P = 0.009). MACCE rates at 3 years were similar in DES and CABG-treated patients (22.7%, P = 1.0), in contrast to results at 1 year (12 vs. 19.6%, P = 0.038). MACCE rates in ERACI III-DES were higher in diabetics (RR 0.81, 0.66-0.99; P = 0.018). Death or non-fatal MI at 3 years trended higher in the DES (10.2%) than BMS cohort (6.2%, P = 0.08) and lower than in CABG patients (15.1%, P = 0.07). Sub-acute late-stent thrombosis (LST) (>30 days) occurred in nine DES patients and no BMS patients (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In patients with multivessel CVD, the initial advantage for PCI with DES over CABG observed at 1 year was not apparent by 3 years. Furthermore, despite continued lower incidence of MACCE, initial advantage over BMS appeared to decrease with time. LST occurred more frequent in DES-treated patients.     

Revascularization in severe left ventricular dysfunction: outcome comparison of drug-eluting stent implantation versus coronary artery by-pass grafting.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcome of drug eluting stent (DES) implantation (Sirolimus or Paclitaxel) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction with the outcome of a similar group of patients undergoing coronary artery by-pass grafting (CABG). BACKGROUND: Revascularization provides long-term benefits in patients with severe LV dysfunction. However the modality to achieve it is still unsettled in this high risk group of patients. METHODS: Two-hundred-twenty patients (20% women) with severe LV dysfunction (LV Ejection Fraction 相似文献   

Percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: Mid-term outcomes of a single-center observational study

BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an appropriate alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for revascularization of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease in patients with low-to–intermediate anatomic complexity or when the patient refuses CABG even after adequate counselling by heart team. We assessed the safety, in-hospital and mid-term outcomes of ULMCA stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) in Indian patients.MethodsOur study was a retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone ULMCA PCI at a tertiary center, between March 2011 and February 2020. Clinical characteristics, procedural data, and follow-up data were analyzed. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) during the hospital stay and at follow-up. The median follow-up was 2.8 years (interquartile range: 1.5–4.1 years).Results661 patients (mean age, 63.5 ± 10.9 years) had undergone ULMCA PCI. The mean SYNTAX score was 27.9 ± 10.4 and the mean LVEF was 58.0 ± 11.1%. 3-vessel disease and distal lesions were noted in 54% and 70.6% patients, respectively. The incidence of in-hospital MACCE was 1.8% and the MACCE during follow-up was 11.5% (including 48 [8.4%] cardiac deaths). The overall survival rates after one, three, five, and nine years were 94%, 88%, 84%, and 82%, respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that age >65 years and high SYNTAX scores were independent predictors of mid to long-term mortality.ConclusionULMCA PCI with DES is safe and has acceptable in-hospital and mid-term outcomes among patients with low-to–intermediate SYNTAX score.     

糖尿病并发多支冠状动脉病变患者血管重建两种主要术式比较

目的:比较临床实践中血管重建术式对糖尿病并多支冠状动脉病变患者临床结果的影响。方法:2006年6月~2010年3月,确诊为糖尿病并发多支冠脉病变的冠心病患者226例,非随机行冠状动脉介入治疗（支架术,PCI)和冠脉搭桥术(CABG)对照研究。分析患者随访1年的临床结果。结果:CABG组和PCI组分别入选患者为105例和121例。比较CABG组与PCI组患者的年龄［(63±6)岁 vs.(68±7)岁,P<0.05］和高血压病史(97.1% vs. 89.3%,P<0.05)均有显著性差异,其他的临床特性均无显著性差异。随访1年的临床结果显示,CABG组与PCI组比较再次血管重建（TVR）(1.0% vs. 18.2%,P<0.01)和主要心脑血管事件（MACCE）(14.3% vs. 28.1%,P<0.01)均有显著性差异;而比较非致死性心肌梗死,卒中和死亡则无显著性差异。结论:糖尿病并多支病冠脉变的冠心病患者血管重建时CABG优于PCI。