首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Zhejiang University. Science, B >Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of in-stent restenosis occurring within bare-metal stent and drug-eluting stent
【24h】

Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of in-stent restenosis occurring within bare-metal stent and drug-eluting stent

机译:药物洗脱支架植入治疗在裸金属支架和药物洗脱支架中发生的支架再狭窄的疗效和安全性

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective: Although drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is the primary treatment modality for bare-metal stent (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR), little is known about the efficacy and safety profile of DES in the treatment of DES-ISR. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes following DES treatment for BMS-ISR and DES-ISR. Methods: Rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were compared in 97 consecutive patients who underwent DES implantation for the treatment of ISR (56 BMS-ISR and 41 DES-ISR) from January 2004 to December 2008. Results: Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were comparable, except that the DES used in the BMS-ISR group was longer and had a larger diameter. The length of follow-up was (28.60±1.96) and (20.34±1.54) months for the BMS-ISR and DES-ISR groups, respectively. One patient (1.8%) experienced non-cardiac mortality and one (1.8%) had target-vessel revascularization (TVR) in the BMS-ISR group. In the DES-ISR group, three patients (7.3%) died of sudden death with a documented acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and three suffered TVR (7.3%). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that cumulative survival probability and MACE-free probability were both significantly lower for the DES-ISR group (log rank test P=0.047 and P=0.005, respectively). In Cox regression analysis, DES-ISR remained an independent predictor for future MACE occurrence after adjustment for other factors (compared with BMS-ISR, risk ratio (RR)=8.743, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54–49.54, P=0.014). Switching to a different type of DES to treat DES-ISR did not improve the prognosis. Conclusion: DES-ISR patients had a poorer prognosis than BMS-ISR patients after DES therapy.
机译:目的:虽然药物洗脱支架(DES)植入是裸金属支架(BMS)内易恢复(ISR)的主要治疗方式,但关于DES-ISR治疗的疗效和安全性曲线知之甚少。本研究的目标是比较BMS-ISR和DES-ISR的DES治疗后的临床结果。方法:在从2004年1月到2008年1月到2008年12月,在97名连续患者中比较了主要不良心脏事件(MACE)的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)。结果:基线临床和程序的结果:基线临床和程序特征是可比的,除了BMS-ISR组中使用的DES更长并且具有较大的直径。 BMS-ISR和DES-ISR组的随访时间(28.60±1.96)和(20.34±1.54)个月。一名患者(1.8%)经历过非心脏病死亡率,1(1.8%)在BMS-ISR组中具有目标血管血运重建(TVR)。在Des-ISR组中,三名患者(7.3%)死于突然死亡,急性急性ST段抬高心肌梗死,三个遭受的TVR(7.3%)。 Kaplan-Meier分析表明,对于DES-ISR组(数值等级试验P = 0.047和P = 0.005),累积存活概率和均比概率均显着降低。在COX回归分析中,DES-ISR仍然是一个独立的预测因子,用于对其他因素进行调整后未来的铰接术发生(与BMS-ISR相比,风险比(RR)= 8.743,95%置信区间(CI)1.54-49.54,P = 0.014 )。切换到不同类型的DES治疗DES-ISR并未提高预后。结论:DES-ISR患者在DES治疗后的BMS-ISR患者的预后较差。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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