Vrints C J, Claeys M J, Bosmans J, Conraads V, Snoeck J P
Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Heart. 1999 Oct;82(4):465-70. doi: 10.1136/hrt.82.4.465.
To determine whether coil stents are as effective as tubular stents in improving coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) after stent deployment.
Distal CFVR was measured with a 0. 014 inch Doppler guide wire before and after stenting in 33 patients. A coil stent was implanted in 16 patients and a tubular stent was used in 17 patients. Coronary flow velocity within the stent was also recorded during a slow pullback.
Following placement of the stents, the percentage diameter stenosis was similar for both the tubular and coil stents (mean (SE) 11 (2)% v 13 (2)%, NS). However, distal CFVR was higher after stenting with a tubular stent compared with a coil stent (2.46 (0.13) v 1.96 (0.14), p < 0.05). Furthermore, pullback through the stent detected a major flow velocity increase within coil stents but not in tubular stents (83 (24)% v 5 (5)%, p < 0.05).
In spite of similar angiographic improvement, placement of coil stents was associated with inferior functional results compared with tubular stents. The flow velocity acceleration within the coil stents suggests the presence of a residual narrowing within the stent, which is not appreciated on angiography.
确定线圈支架在支架置入后改善冠状动脉血流速度储备(CFVR)方面是否与管状支架一样有效。
在33例患者中,于支架置入前后用0.014英寸多普勒导丝测量远端CFVR。16例患者植入线圈支架,17例患者使用管状支架。在缓慢回撤过程中也记录支架内的冠状动脉血流速度。
支架置入后,管状支架和线圈支架的直径狭窄百分比相似(均值(标准误)11(2)%对13(2)%,无显著性差异)。然而,与线圈支架相比,管状支架置入后远端CFVR更高(2.46(0.13)对1.96(0.14),p<0.05)。此外,通过支架回撤检测到线圈支架内血流速度大幅增加,而管状支架内未出现(83(24)%对5(5)%,p<0.05)。
尽管血管造影显示改善相似,但与管状支架相比,线圈支架置入后的功能结果较差。线圈支架内的血流速度加速表明支架内存在残余狭窄,血管造影未显示。