首页> 外文期刊>Acta Cardiologica >A long-term comparison of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents for the percutaneous treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions.
【24h】

A long-term comparison of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents for the percutaneous treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions.

机译:药物洗脱支架与裸金属支架在经皮治疗冠状动脉分叉病变中的长期比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: After the first exciting results on drug-eluting stents (DES), many concerns have been raised on their potential risk for late stent thrombosis. Whereas DES appear beneficial at early and mid-term for coronary bifurcation lesions, no data are available on their long-term safety in this setting in comparison to bare metal stents (BMS). We thus aimed to appraise the long-term (> 2 years) outcomes of patients with bifurcation lesions treated with DES vs. BMS. METHODS: We abstracted baseline, procedural and follow-up data on all patients with bifurcation coronary lesions (both branches with reference vessel diameter > 2.0 mm) treated with stent implantation at our centre. The primary end-point was the long-term (> 2 years) rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, i.e. cardiac death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting and target vessel revascularization). RESULTS: A total of 315 patients and 334 lesions were included, 84.4% treated with DES, and 15.6% treated with BMS. The side branch was stented in 108 cases, according to a provisional T in 76 (22.7%), crushing in 15 (4.5%),V in 14 (4.2%), and culottes in 1 (0.3%). In-hospital MACE occurred in 4 (1.5%) patients of the DES group and 2 (4.1%) of the BMS group (P = 0.22). After 35.8 +/- 12.9 months, MACE were 72 (27.1%) vs. 24 (49%), respectively (P = 0.002), with cardiac death in 7 (2.6%) patients vs. 3 (6.1%, P = 0.20), myocardial infarction in 12 (4.5%) vs. 6 (12.2%, P = 0.42), coronary artery bypass grafting in 5 (1.9%) vs. 1 (2%, P = 0.93), target lesion revascularization in 30 (11.3%) vs. 13 (26.5%, P = 0.0042), and target vessel revascularization in 48 (18%) vs. 13 (26.5%, P = 0.16). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 2 (0.75%) patients in the DES group vs. 1 (2%, P = 0.93) in the BMS group, whereas probable stent thrombosis was adjudicated in 5 (1.9%) vs. 2 (4%, P = 0.93). CONCLUSION: This cohort study, reporting for the first time on the long-term outlook of patients treated with DES vs. BMS for coronary bifurcation lesions, supports the overall safety and efficacy of DES in comparison to BMS. Specifically, even after several years of follow-up, repeat revascularizations appeared significantly lower with DES, and stent thromboses occurred with equivalent frequency in both DES and BMS groups.
机译:背景:在药物洗脱支架(DES)上取得了第一个令人兴奋的结果之后,人们对它们晚期支架血栓形成的潜在风险提出了许多关注。尽管DES在早期和中期对冠状动脉分叉病变有益,但与裸金属支架(BMS)相比,在这种情况下其长期安全性尚无数据。因此,我们旨在评估用DES与BMS治疗的分叉病变患者的长期(> 2年)结局。方法:我们对在我们中心接受支架植入治疗的所有分叉型冠状动脉病变(两个分支的参考血管直径均大于2.0 mm)患者的基线,手术和随访数据进行了摘要。主要终点是严重不良心脏事件(MACE,即心脏死亡,心肌梗塞,冠状动脉搭桥术和靶血管血运重建)的长期(> 2年)发生率。结果:总共包括315例患者和334个病变,DES治疗的占84.4%,BMS治疗的占15.6%。根据临时T的76例(22.7%),压碎的15例(4.5%),V的14例(4.2%)和裙裤的1例(0.3%)的情况,侧支被置入108例。 DES组的4名患者(1.5%)和BMS组的2名患者(4.1%)发生了院内MACE(P = 0.22)。在35.8 +/- 12.9个月后,MACE分别为72(27.1%)和24(49%)(P = 0.002),其中心源性死亡的发生率分别为7(2.6%)和3(6.1%,P = 0.20) ),心肌梗死发生率分别为12(4.5%)vs. 6(12.2%,P = 0.42),冠状动脉搭桥术5(1.9%)vs. 1(2%,P = 0.93),目标病变血运重建为30( 11.3%)vs.13(26.5%,P = 0.0042),以及48(18%)vs.13(26.5%,P = 0.16)的靶血管血运重建。 DES组有2例(0.75%)患者发生明确的支架血栓形成,而BMS组有1例(2%,P = 0.93),而5例(1.9%)与2例(4% P = 0.93)。结论:该队列研究首次报道了DES与BMS治疗冠状动脉分叉病变的患者的长期前景,与DES相比,DES支持了总体安全性和有效性。具体而言,即使经过数年的随访,DES和BMS组的重复血运重建仍明显降低,并且支架血栓形成的发生频率相同。

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