Garcia-Tejada Julio, Velazquez Maite, Hernandez Felipe, Albarran Agustín, Rodriguez Sergio, Gomez Ivan, Andreu Javier, Tascon Juan
Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Doce de Octubre, Avenida de Cordoba s/n,Madrid, Spain.
Angiology. 2009 Feb-Mar;60(1):60-6. doi: 10.1177/0003319708317335. Epub 2008 May 28.
In patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery, it is unknown whether better results may be obtained with percutaneous interventions of grafts versus native arteries. The clinical outcomes in 84 patients undergoing percutaneous interventions of either grafts (n = 31) or native arteries (n = 53) were compared. Procedural success rate was 95.3% (96.8% in the graft group vs 94.4% in the native group, P = .3). Mean follow-up was 19 +/- 7 months. The incidence of major adverse events was 14.2% (12.9% vs 15.1% in the graft and native groups, respectively; P = .8), mortality rate was 3.5% (6.4% vs 1.8% in the graft and native groups, respectively; P = .3), and target-lesion revascularization was performed in 4.7% (6.4% vs 3.7% in the graft and native groups, respectively, P = .6). In conclusion, both graft or native percutaneous interventions were similar for immediate and midterm clinical outcomes. The relatively low risk need for target-lesion revascularization obtained with both strategies is encouraging.
对于曾接受冠状动脉旁路移植术的患者，与对自身动脉进行经皮介入治疗相比，对移植血管进行经皮介入治疗是否能取得更好的效果尚不清楚。我们比较了84例接受移植血管（n = 31）或自身动脉（n = 53）经皮介入治疗患者的临床结局。手术成功率为95.3%（移植血管组为96.8%，自身动脉组为94.4%，P = 0.3）。平均随访时间为19±7个月。主要不良事件发生率为14.2%（移植血管组和自身动脉组分别为12.9%和15.1%；P = 0.8），死亡率为3.5%（移植血管组和自身动脉组分别为6.4%和1.8%；P = 0.3），靶病变血运重建率为4.7%（移植血管组和自身动脉组分别为6.4%和3.7%，P = 0.6）。总之，移植血管或自身动脉的经皮介入治疗在近期和中期临床结局方面相似。两种策略的靶病变血运重建风险相对较低，令人鼓舞。
