冠状动脉三支病变不同血运重建方式的疗效

摘要

目的 探讨经皮冠状动脉介入性治疗(PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)不同血运重建方式治疗冠心病三支病变的利弊.方法 63例冠心病三支病变患者分为PCI组(35例)和CABG组(28例),随访主要心脑血管不良事件、再住院率和无事件生存率.结果 平均随访时间(30.54±5.13)个月.PCI组再次血运重建率高于CABG组(22.9%vs.3.6%)(P＜0.05),再入院率亦高于CABG组(45.7%vs.17.9%)(P＜0.05),而CABG组无事件生存率高于PCI组(78.6%vs.48.6%)(P＜0.05).结论 冠心病三支病变患者2年后血运情况CABG组优于PCI组.%Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of a strategy of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary-artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods Sixty-three CAD patients with three-vessel lesions were divided into group PCI(35 cases) and group CABG(28 cases), who were followed up for (30. 54±5.13) months. The clinical outcomes and major cardiovascular adverse events were compared. Results The rate of repeat revascularization in 2 years was higher in group PCI than that in group CABG(22.9％ vs. 3.6％)(P＜0. 05). So did the rate of readmission for angina or heart failure(45. 7％ vs. 17.9％)(P＜0. 05). The patients in group CABG had a higher event-free survival rate than that in group PCI ( 78. 6 ％ vs. 48. 6 ％) (P＜ 0.05 ). Conclusion The myocardial blood circulation is better in the patients received CABG than that in those received PCI.