Pan Manuel, Suárez de Lezo José, Medina Alfonso, Romero Miguel, González Sandra, Segura José, Pavlovic Djordje, Rodríguez Marcos, Muñoz Juan, Ojeda Soledad, Hernández Enrique, Caballero Eduardo, Delgado Antonio, Melián Francisco
Hospital "Reina Sofía," University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003 Mar;58(3):293-300. doi: 10.1002/ccd.10439.
Diffuse coronary lesions (length > 20 mm) are still considered high risk for percutaneous intervention even in the current stent era. We compared the 2-year outcome of patients with long diffuse stenosis treated by three different stent strategies. In addition, we also analyzed the possible factors influencing a favorable late outcome. Our series is constituted by 232 patients with 247 long lesions treated between May 1994 and April 1999; 82 patients received one single long stent (group 1), 71 patients were treated by overlapped multiple stents (group 2), and 79 with multiple nonoverlapped stents (group 3). The mean age was 59 +/- 11 years. There were not significant differences between groups in terms of age, risk factors, clinical presentation, type of lesion, or adjunctive medical therapy. Patients from group 1 had shorter lesions (29 +/- 10 mm) than patients from groups 2 (41 +/- 15 mm) and 3 (36 +/- 14; P < 0.05). Major cardiac events (death, acute myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) at 24 +/- 12 months follow-up took place in 39 patients (17%). The probabilities of being free of major events at follow-up were 71%, 78%, and 80% for group 1, 2, and 3 respectively (P = NS). Only three variables were identified as significant predictors of these late events: smaller vessel size, smaller minimal lumen diameter after stenting, and the type of lesion being restenotic as compared with native stenosis. Patients with diffuse lesions treated by single long stents did not have a better late outcome than those who received multiple stents. The best late outcome was observed in those patients who had bigger vessel size, larger poststent lumen dimensions and native lesions, regardless of the stent deployment strategy used.
即使在当前的支架时代,弥漫性冠状动脉病变(长度>20 mm)仍被认为是经皮介入治疗的高风险病变。我们比较了采用三种不同支架策略治疗的长弥漫性狭窄患者的2年预后。此外,我们还分析了影响良好晚期预后的可能因素。我们的研究系列包括1994年5月至1999年4月期间治疗的232例患者的247处长病变;82例患者接受单个长支架治疗(第1组),71例患者接受重叠多个支架治疗(第2组),79例患者接受多个非重叠支架治疗(第3组)。平均年龄为59±11岁。在年龄、危险因素、临床表现、病变类型或辅助药物治疗方面,各组之间无显著差异。第1组患者的病变(29±10 mm)比第2组(41±15 mm)和第3组(36±14 mm;P<0.05)患者的病变短。在24±12个月的随访中,39例患者(17%)发生了主要心脏事件(死亡、急性心肌梗死或再次血管重建)。第1组、第2组和第3组随访时无主要事件的概率分别为71%、78%和80%(P=无显著性差异)。仅三个变量被确定为这些晚期事件的显著预测因素:血管尺寸较小、支架置入后最小管腔直径较小以及与原生狭窄相比病变为再狭窄类型。接受单个长支架治疗的弥漫性病变患者的晚期预后并不比接受多个支架治疗的患者更好。无论采用何种支架置入策略,在血管尺寸较大、支架置入后管腔尺寸较大以及原生病变的患者中观察到最佳的晚期预后。