Department of Cardiology, Emsey Hospital, Kurtköy Pendik, 34912, Istanbul, Turkey.
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Emsey Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Heart Vessels. 2024 Sep;39(9):771-777. doi: 10.1007/s00380-024-02406-5. Epub 2024 Apr 22.
Our study aimed to assess the influence of incorporating new oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy on clinical outcomes among patients who underwent endovascular intervention for below-the-knee (BTK) occlusions necessitating reintervention. The inclusion criteria encompassed patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and had undergone a successful endovascular intervention for BTK artery occlusion, necessitating reintervention. Patients who underwent endovascular interventions for BTK reocclusion were compared to those who received dual-pathway inhibition with NOAC (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg 2 × 1) and clopidogrel (NOAC group), or dual-antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin (DAPT group). The primary endpoints were target vessel reocclusion and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at the 1-year follow-up, while major and minor amputations served as the secondary endpoint. Additionally, a one-year comparison was conducted between the two groups for major bleeding events. 64 patients in our clinic treated with endovascular reintervention (NOAC = 28, DAPT = 34). The TLR rate is 10.7% in NOAC group (N = 3) and 32.4% in DAPT group (N = 11, p = 0.043). The target vessel reocclusion rate is 17.8% in NOAC group (N = 5) and 41.2% in DAPT group (N = 14, p = 0.048). Minor or major amputation rate at 1-year follow-up was 3.6% in NOAC group (N = 1) and 11.7% in DAPT group (N = 4, p = 0.245). The patency rate is significantly higher, and the TLR rate is significantly lower in the NOAC group compared to the DAPT group, with no significant difference in major bleeding between the two groups. Although no statistically significant difference exists in amputation rates, a numerical distinction is evident.
我们的研究旨在评估在因下肢膝下(BTK)闭塞而需要再次介入治疗的患者中,加入新型口服抗凝剂(NOAC)治疗对临床结局的影响。纳入标准包括患有慢性肢体威胁性缺血(CLTI)并已成功接受 BTK 动脉闭塞血管内介入治疗,需要再次介入治疗的患者。比较了因 BTK 再闭塞而接受血管内介入治疗的患者与接受 NOAC(利伐沙班 2.5mg 2×1)和氯吡格雷(NOAC 组)双通道抑制或氯吡格雷和阿司匹林双联抗血小板治疗(DAPT 组)的患者。主要终点是 1 年随访时的靶血管再闭塞和靶病变血运重建(TLR),而大截肢和小截肢是次要终点。此外,对两组间 1 年内大出血事件进行了比较。我们诊所对 64 例接受血管内再介入治疗的患者进行了治疗(NOAC=28,DAPT=34)。NOAC 组的 TLR 率为 10.7%(N=3),DAPT 组为 32.4%(N=11,p=0.043)。NOAC 组的靶血管再闭塞率为 17.8%(N=5),DAPT 组为 41.2%(N=14,p=0.048)。NOAC 组 1 年随访时小或大截肢率为 3.6%(N=1),DAPT 组为 11.7%(N=4,p=0.245)。NOAC 组的通畅率明显较高,TLR 率明显较低,两组间大出血无显著差异。虽然截肢率无统计学差异,但存在数字差异。