Suppr超能文献

与紫杉醇洗脱支架相比,西罗莫司洗脱支架用于隐静脉搭桥血管介入治疗的疗效。

Efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents for saphenous vein graft intervention.

作者信息

Chu William W, Kuchulakanti Pramod K, Wang Betty, Clavijo Leonardo C, Suddath William O, Pichard Augusto D, Satler Lowell F, Kent Kenneth M, Waksman Ron

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC 20010, USA.

出版信息

J Interv Cardiol. 2006 Apr;19(2):121-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2006.00118.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is associated with a significantly increased rate of periprocedural complications and late clinical and angiographic restenosis. In the contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) era, the comparison of the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in SVG interventions is currently unknown. We conducted this retrospective analysis to investigate this issue.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-seven patients with 50 SVG lesions who underwent standard percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with SES (SES group) were compared with 42 patients with 45 SVG lesions with PES (PES group). All patients received distal protection devices (DPDs) during the interventions. The in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month clinical outcomes in both groups were compared. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced between both groups except for the proximal and mid lesions. There were no deaths or Q-wave myocardial infarctions (MIs) during the index hospitalization. Non-Q-wave MI was similar between the two groups (SES vs PES, 4.3% vs 7.1%, P=0.55). At 30-day and 6-month follow-ups, all the clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. There was no subacute thrombosis (SAT) or late thrombosis in either group. The event-free survival at 6 months was also similar between both groups (P=0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DES in patients undergoing SVG intervention with a DPD is clinically safe and feasible. As compared to SES, PES have the same efficacy and clinical outcomes in SVG interventions up to 6 months.

摘要

背景

大隐静脉桥血管(SVG)介入治疗与围手术期并发症发生率显著增加以及晚期临床和血管造影再狭窄相关。在当代药物洗脱支架(DES)时代,西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)与紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES)在SVG介入治疗中的疗效比较目前尚不清楚。我们进行了这项回顾性分析以研究该问题。

方法与结果

47例接受SES标准经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的50处SVG病变患者(SES组)与42例接受PES治疗的45处SVG病变患者(PES组)进行比较。所有患者在介入治疗期间均接受远端保护装置(DPD)。比较两组的住院期间、30天和6个月的临床结局。除近端和中段病变外,两组的基线临床和手术特征均衡。索引住院期间无死亡或Q波心肌梗死(MI)。两组间非Q波MI相似(SES组与PES组,4.3%对7.1%,P = 0.55)。在30天和6个月随访时,两组所有临床结局相似。两组均无亚急性血栓形成(SAT)或晚期血栓形成。两组6个月时的无事件生存率也相似(P = 0.75)。

结论

在接受DPD的SVG介入治疗患者中使用DES在临床上是安全可行的。与SES相比,PES在长达6个月的SVG介入治疗中具有相同的疗效和临床结局。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验