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.

Clinical follow-up outcomes of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Objective To evaluate the effects of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ASTEMI) receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods The 217patients with ASTEMI receiving PPCI from Jan. 2005 to Dec. 2007 were enrolled in this study. And they were divided into two groups: DES group (n=92) and BMS group (n=125). The baseline characteristics including age, gender, angiographic characteristics, stents characteristics, Killip classification, cardiac troponin I(CTnI)levels, left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF), hemoglobin levels, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity and smoking of the two groups were collected.Clinical follow-up end point were major adverse cardiac event(MACE)including death, acute myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stent restenosis. Clinical follow-up duration was(16.8±11.3) months (6-38 months). Results The average age (years), rate of Killip classification (class 2, 3, 4), average diameter (mm) of stent were significantly higher in BMS group than in DES group(64.6±11.9 vs. 61.2±11.8, t=2.09, P=0.037;25.9% vs. 12.2%, χ2=5.53, P=0.019;3.07±0.38 vs. 2.91±0. 40, t=2.78, P=0.006). And the average LVEF (%) was significantly lower in BMS group than in DES group (55.4±11.9 vs. 60.3±12.8, t= -2.57, P=0.011). The average length (mm) of stent, rate of stent post dilatation and diabetes were significantly higher in DES group than inBMSgroup (32.8±16.2 vs. 26.2±11.2, t=-3.54, P=0.001;45.7% vs. 21.6%, χ2=13.85, P=0. 000;28.2% vs. 16.0%, χ2=4.77, P=0.030). MACE occurred in 36 patients during clinical follow-up, 6 in DES group and 30 in BMS group. Incidence of MACE was significantly lower in DES group than in BMS group(6.5% vs. 24.0%, χ2=11.70, P＜0.01). Conclusions Using DES in ASTEMI patients is safe and may improve clinical outcomes by reducing incidence of MACE compared with BMS.