...
首页> 外文期刊>The American heart journal >Immediate and long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: comparison with bare-metal stent implantation.
【24h】

Immediate and long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: comparison with bare-metal stent implantation.

机译:无保护的左主冠状动脉疾病药物洗脱支架植入的近期和长期结果:与裸金属支架植入的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease remain to be established in different clinical settings. METHODS: Elective DES implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis was performed in 220 patients at the Fu Wai Hospital, China, from April 2003 to February 2006. Data derived from the latter group were compared with those derived from 224 patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMSs) before March 2003 in a Chinese registry of unprotected LMCA stenting. RESULTS: Compared with the historical BMS control group, the DES group had more multivessel disease and underwent more bifurcation stenting. The inhospital major adverse cardiac events were significantly higher in the DES than in the BMS recipients (4.1% vs 0.9%, P = .030) because of more complex lesions and procedures in the DES group. During the 15-month mean follow-up period, cumulative cardiac death (0.5% vs 4.9%, P = .004), target-vessel revascularization (5.9% vs 11.6%, P = .034), and major adverse cardiac event (9.5% vs 16.5%, P = .029) rates were significantly lower in the DES than in the BMS group. There was no significant difference in clinical efficacy between sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. Angiographic follow-up was performed in 46.4% of DES and 45.7% of BMS recipients, respectively; and the binary restenosis rate was significantly lower in the DES versus the BMS control group (16.7% vs 31.4%, P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this comparison with a historical control, DES implantation for unprotected LMCA appears safe in selected patients and might be more effective in preventing major adverse cardiac events compared with BMS implantation over a mean follow-up period of 15 months.
机译:背景:药物洗脱支架(DES)植入治疗未保护的左主冠状动脉(LMCA)疾病的有效性和安全性在不同的临床环境中仍有待确立。方法:2003年4月至2006年2月,在中国阜外医院对220例无保护的LMCA狭窄患者进行了选择性DES植入。将后一组的数据与224例接受裸金属支架治疗的患者的数据进行了比较( BMSs)在2003年3月之前在中国未注册的LMCA支架置入系统中注册。结果:与传统的BMS对照组相比,DES组的多支血管病变更多,分叉支架置入也更多。 DES组的院内主要不良心脏事件显着高于BMS组(4.1%比0.9%,P = .030),因为DES组的病灶和操作更为复杂。在15个月的平均随访期内,累计心脏死亡(0.5%vs 4.9%,P = .004),靶血管血运重建(5.9%vs 11.6%,P = .034)和主要的不良心脏事件( DES组的发生率分别为9.5%和16.5%,P = .029),显着低于BMS组。西罗莫司和紫杉醇洗脱支架之间的临床疗效无明显差异。分别在46.4%的DES和45.7%的BMS接受者中进行了血管造影随访。 DES中的二元再狭窄率显着低于BMS对照组(分别为16.7%和31.4%,P = .014)。结论:基于与历史对照的比较,无保护的LMCA的DES植入在选定的患者中似乎是安全的,并且在平均15个月的随访期间,与BMS植入相比,在预防重大不良心脏事件方面可能更有效。

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