首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of invasive cardiology >Embolic protection device use and outcomes in patients receiving saphenous vein graft interventions--a single-center experience.
【24h】

Embolic protection device use and outcomes in patients receiving saphenous vein graft interventions--a single-center experience.

机译:栓塞保护装置的使用和接受隐静脉移植干预措施的患者的结局 - 单中心体验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Percutaneous treatment of saphenous vein graft disease is hampered by high rates of periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI). The use of embolic protection devices (EPD) during these interventions is a class IB recommendation when technically feasible, yet they are used routinely in less than half of all cases. Our aim was to explore whether or not the under-utilization of EPDs led to any untoward cardiovascular events.Consecutive vein graft interventions from 2003-2008 were identified and stratified by EPD use. Information pertaining to demographics, comorbidities, medication use, and procedural details was collected. Primary endpoint was to compare the incidence of periprocedural MI, defined as any creatinine kinase-MB fraction elevation greater than 3 times the upper limit of normal between patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for saphenous vein grafts (SVG) with EPD versus patients who underwent PCI for SVG without EPD. Secondary endpoints included comparison of the incidence of recurrent ischemia, MI, revascularization (PCI or coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]), and mortality in the above 2 groups by the end of 1 year.A total of 164 consecutive vein graft interventions were identified. EPDs were used in 71 cases (43.4%). The EPD group was further out since their CABG and had a higher prevalence of hypertension and diabetes. Periprocedural MI occurred in 22 cases; 12 in the non-EPD group and 10 in the EPD group (14.1 vs. 12.9%; P=.82). The composite endpoint of death, MI, or target vessel revascularization at 12 months was significantly lower when EPDs were used (11.3 vs. 25.8%; P=.03). On multivariate analysis, chronic kidney disease increased the risk of periprocedural MI (odds ratio [OR], 5.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.90-15.13; P=.002), whereas the use of beta-blockers was protective (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07-0.70; P=.011).EPD use during vein graft interventions did not improve periprocedural MI rates. However, the composite endpoint of adverse cardiovascular outcomes at 1 year was significantly reduced. EPDs are used in a minority of vein graft interventions. Efforts aimed at improving adherence to EPD use may improve long-term outcomes, though this hypothesis should be tested using prospective, randomized studies.
机译:高静脉静脉移植疾病的经皮治疗受到高腹膜心肌梗死(MI)的高率的阻碍。在这些干预措施中,使用栓塞保护设备(EPD)是一类IB建议,在技术上可行,但在不到一半的情况下通常使用它们。我们的目的是探索EPDS的利用不足导致任何不良心血管事件。连续的静脉移植干预措施从2003- 2008年确定并通过EPD使用进行了分层。收集了与人口统计学,合并症,药物使用和程序细节有关的信息。主要终点是比较周围腹膜上的MI的发生率,该发生率定义为任何肌酐激酶-MB级分升高大于3倍于与EPD患者的Saphenous静脉移植物(SPHEN)接受经皮冠状动脉干预(PCI)的患者之间正常上限的3倍谁在没有EPD的情况下接受了SVG的PCI。次要终点包括比较复发性缺血,MI,血运重建(PCI或冠状动脉搭桥移植物[CABG])和上述2组的死亡率的比较。总共确定了164个连续的静脉移植措施。 EPD在71例(43.4%)中使用。 EPD组自CABG以来就更远,高血压和糖尿病患病率更高。 22例病例发生了腹部MI。在非EPD组中12,EPD组为10(14.1 vs. 12.9%; p = .82)。使用EPDS时,死亡,MI或目标血管血运重合的复合终点显着降低(11.3 vs. 25.8%; P = .03)。在多变量分析中,慢性肾脏疾病增加了周围腹部MI的风险(优势比[OR],5.36; 95%置信区间[CI],1.90-15.13; P = .002),而使用Beta-Blockers是保护性的(或0.22; 95%CI,0.07-0.70; p = .011).EPD在静脉移植干预期间的使用并不能提高围骨外部MI速率。然而,1年后心血管结局的不良心血管结局的综合终点显着降低。 EPD用于少数静脉移植干预措施。旨在提高依从性EPD使用的努力可能会改善长期结果,尽管应使用前瞻性,随机研究对此假设进行检验。

著录项

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