首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Korean Medical Science >Comparison of Angiographic Outcomes of Side Branch Ostium at Bifurcation Coronary Lesion between Two-stent and One-stent Techniques
【2h】

Comparison of Angiographic Outcomes of Side Branch Ostium at Bifurcation Coronary Lesion between Two-stent and One-stent Techniques

机译:两支架和一支架技术在分叉冠状动脉病变侧支口血管造影结果的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Although the favored strategy for coronary bifurcation intervention is stenting main vessel with provisional side branch (SB) stenting, we occasionally use two-stent strategy. The objective of this study was to investigate the angiographic outcome of SB ostium in two-stent group, compared with one-stent group. We analyzed 199 patients with bifurcation lesion who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent and follow up angiography. The patients were divided into one-stent group (167 lesions, 158 patients) and two-stent group (41 lesions, 41 patients). Prior to intervention, SB ostium minimal luminal diameter (MLD) was smaller in two-stent group than in one-stent group (1.08±0.55 mm vs. 1.39±0.60 mm; P=0.01). But, immediately after PCI, SB MLD of two-stent group became greater than that of one-stent group (2.41±0.40 mm vs. 1.18±0.68 mm; P<0.01). Six to nine months after PCI, this angiographic superiority in SB MLD of two-stent group persisted (1.56±0.71 mm vs. 1.13±0.53 mm; P<0.01), although there was larger late loss in two-stent group (0.85±0.74 mm vs. 0.05±0.57 mm; P<0.01). In terms of target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization rates, one-stent group showed better results than two-stent group. We could attain wider long term SB ostium after two-stent strategy than after one-stent strategy.Graphical Abstract
机译:尽管冠状动脉分叉术的首选治疗策略是将主动脉支架与临时侧支(SB)支架一起进行支架置入,但我们偶尔会使用两支架策略。这项研究的目的是调查与两个支架组相比,在两个支架组中SB造口的血管造影结果。我们分析了199名分叉病变的患者,这些患者接受了药物洗脱支架的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)并进行了血管造影。将患者分为一个支架组(167个病灶,158例患者)和两个支架组(41个病灶,41例患者)。干预前,两支架组的SB口最小管腔最小直径(MLD)小于单支架组(1.08±0.55 mm对1.39±0.60 mm; P = 0.01)。但是,PCI后,两支架组的SB MLD明显大于一支架组(2.41±0.40 mm对1.18±0.68 mm; P <0.01)。 PCI后6到9个月,两支架组SB MLD的这种血管造影优势持续存在(1.56±0.71 mm vs. 1.13±0.53 mm; P <0.01),尽管两支架组的晚期丢失更大(0.85± 0.74毫米vs.0.05±0.57毫米; P <0.01)。就靶病变血运重建和靶血管血运重建率而言,一支架组的疗效优于两支架组。两支架策略比单支架策略能获得更广泛的长期SB口。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号