药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗弥漫病变的比较研究

目的比较冠心病患者弥漫病变采用药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗的近期和远期预后,分析影响这类病变介入治疗预后的危险因素。方法研究对象为我院2004年4月至2005年8月接受置入单个长度>25.0mm支架治疗并且进行冠状动脉造影随访的205例患者,排除支架置入失败及支架置入位置不理想者。分为置入药物洗脱支架(DES)组(n=128)和置入金属裸支架(BMS)组(n=77)。所有的患者术后均接受阿司匹林300mg、氯吡格雷75mg等规范药物治疗。手术成功判定标准为至少用相互垂直的两个投照体位行冠状动脉造影,肉眼判定残余狭窄<20%和前向血流TIMI3级。再狭窄判定标准以复查冠状动脉造影定量分析支架内或支架邻近血管管腔直径狭窄程度≥50%。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205例患者(男性181例,女性24例)227个靶病变置入382枚支架完成造影随访。其中C型病变占总数的93.8%,B2型病变为6.2%。双支或双支以上血管病变的患者比例达到86.8%。平均术前参考血管直径(2.88±0.43)mm。平均每个病变支架长度(40.09±12.94)mm,54.2%的病变接受了重叠置入支架。比较置入DES组和置入BMS组,两组的患者基本条件差异无统计学意义,在病变基本条件方面,DES组术前参考血管直径明显小于BMS组[(2.80±0.37)mm比(3.10±0.48)mm,P=0.005]。6个月随访结果显示再狭窄率DES组(15.4%)小于BMS组(48.4%),P<0.001。晚期支架内腔径丢失BMS组明显大于DES组[(0.94±0.76)mm比(0.39±0.53)mm,P<0.001]。靶病变血管重建率DES要明显好于BMS(11.6%比38.5%,P<0.001)。支架内再狭窄在置入DES组的局限性再狭窄比例大于置入BMS组(33.3%比18.2%,P=0.029)。对影响复杂弥漫病变支架再狭窄因素的多元logistic回归分析发现,采用支架重叠置入(OR=2.82,P=0.017)和支架类型(OR=5.71,P<0.001)是对复杂弥漫病变支架内再狭窄影响最大的危险因素。结论我们的研究发现对于复杂弥漫病变的治疗,药物洗脱支架有着良好的治疗效果,较金属裸支架能明显减低再狭窄率。对于弥漫病变,我们应该使用长支架,尽可能减少支架重叠置入的数量。

Compare drug-eluting stent to bare-metal stent in prognosis on treating diffuse coronary lesions

OBJECTIVE: Compare drug-eluting stent (DES) to bare-metal stent (BMS) in prognosis on treating diffuse coronary lesions and analysis risk factor of treating complex and diffuse lesions in PCI. METHODS: 205 consecutive patients with complex and diffuse coronary lesions enrolled our hospital, who were treated with more than 25 mm long DES or BMS. We exclude unsuccessful operation and location. All patients received medical treatment by guideline, and aspirin 300 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg once daily were continued at 6 months after the procedure. The patients were followed up after 6 months. RESULTS: The study population were consisted of 205 patients that there were 181 man, and 24 women, who got 382 stents for 227 target lesions in coronary. There were 93.8% C and 6.2% B2 ACC/AHA type lesion. There were 86.8% patients with binary or above vessel treated. The average reference vessel diameter was 2.88 +/- 0.43 mm. The average stent length of per lesion was 40.09 +/- 12.94 mm. There were 54.2% lesions treated with overlapping stent. There were not different between DES and BMS in patients baseline characteristics, but RVD of group DES less than of group BMS (2.80 +/- 0.37 mm, 3.10 +/- 0.48 mm, P = 0.005) in lesion baseline characteristics. After 6 months, restenosis rate in group DES was less than in group BMS (15.4%, 48.4%, P < 0.001). There were obvious superiority TVR of DES than of BMS (11.6%, 38.5%, P < 0.001). The rate of local restenosis in group of DES was higher than that in group of BMS (33.3%, 18.2%, P = 0.029). We analyzed the risk factors for diffuse lesion by a logistic regression model, the significant univariate clinical and angiographic predictors of restenosis were treating with overlapping stent (OR = 2.82, P = 0.017) and drug-eluting stent (OR = 5.71, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We find that implantation of DES in patients with diffuse lesions in coronary is relatively more safe and associated with more good clinical outcomes, than of BMS.