Minutello Robert M, Bhagan Sherrita, Sharma Atul, Slotwiner Alexander J, Feldman Dmitriy N, Cuomo Linda J, Wong S Chiu
New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Campus, New York, New York, USA.
J Interv Cardiol. 2007 Dec;20(6):458-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2007.00301.x.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in the treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease.
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of SVG lesions with bare metal stents (BMS) is associated with frequent in-stent restenosis, progression of disease in nonstented SVG segments, and suboptimal clinical outcomes. While SES have been shown to reduce restenosis rates in various native lesion subsets, the long-term clinical impact of SES use in SVG lesions is less clear.
We compared our first 59 patients who underwent SES implantation in SVGs with 50 consecutive patients who received BMS in an equivalent time period prior to SES availability. Clinical outcomes were compared in both groups.
Baseline clinical variables between the two groups were similar. Mean graft age in the SES cohort was older than that in the BMS cohort (12.9 years vs. 9.4 years). At follow-up, the SES group had a 24.6% absolute lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (25.4% vs. 50.0%), driven by a 20.7% absolute lower incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) (15.3% vs. 36.0%). The SES treatment group had a 24.1% lower rate of clinical restenosis (11.9% vs. 36.0%). The use of a SES was an independent negative predictor of MACE at a mean follow-up of 20 months (odds ratio [OR]= 0.48,P = 0.03).
Despite the placement of longer stents in patients with older, smaller SVGs, the use of SES in the treatment of SVG lesions appears to be safe and is associated with less clinical restenosis and more favorable long-term clinical outcomes as compared with BMS.
本研究旨在评估西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)治疗大隐静脉桥血管(SVG)病变的疗效。
使用裸金属支架(BMS)对SVG病变进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)常伴有支架内频繁再狭窄、非支架植入的SVG节段病变进展以及不理想的临床结局。虽然SES已被证明可降低各种原发性病变亚组的再狭窄率,但SES用于SVG病变的长期临床影响尚不清楚。
我们将最初59例接受SVG植入SES的患者与在SES可用之前的相同时间段内连续接受BMS的50例患者进行比较。比较两组的临床结局。
两组之间的基线临床变量相似。SES队列中的平均桥血管使用年限比BMS队列中的更长(12.9年对9.4年)。在随访时,SES组主要不良心脏事件(MACE)的绝对发生率低24.6%(25.4%对50.0%),这是由靶血管血运重建(TVR)的绝对发生率低20.7%所致(15.3%对36.0%)。SES治疗组的临床再狭窄率低24.1%(11.9%对36.0%)。在平均20个月的随访中,使用SES是MACE的独立阴性预测因素(优势比[OR]=0.48,P=0.03)。
尽管在年龄较大、管径较小的SVG患者中植入了更长的支架,但与BMS相比,SES用于治疗SVG病变似乎是安全的,且临床再狭窄较少,长期临床结局更有利。