Suppr超能文献

冠状动脉疾病患者中球囊扩张式支架植入术与球囊血管成形术的比较。贝内斯特恩研究小组。

A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group.

作者信息

Serruys P W, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, Macaya C, Rutsch W, Heyndrickx G, Emanuelsson H, Marco J, Legrand V, Materne P

机构信息

University Hospital Rotterdam Dijkzigt, Thorax Center, The Netherlands.

出版信息

N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 25;331(8):489-95. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199408253310801.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Balloon-expandable coronary-artery stents were developed to prevent coronary restenosis after coronary angioplasty. These devices hold coronary vessels open at sites that have been dilated. However, it is unknown whether stenting improves long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes as compared with standard balloon angioplasty.

METHODS

A total of 520 patients with stable angina and a single coronary-artery lesion were randomly assigned to either stent implantation (262 patients) or standard balloon angioplasty (258 patients). The primary clinical end points were death, the occurrence of a cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, the need for coronary-artery bypass surgery, or a second percutaneous intervention involving the previously treated lesion, either at the time of the initial procedure or during the subsequent seven months. The primary angiographic end point was the minimal luminal diameter at follow-up, as determined by quantitative coronary angiography.

RESULTS

After exclusions, 52 patients in the stent group (20 percent) and 76 patients in the angioplasty group (30 percent) reached a primary clinical end point (relative risk, 0.68; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.92; P = 0.02). The difference in clinical-event rates was explained mainly by a reduced need for a second coronary angioplasty in the stent group (relative risk, 0.58; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.85; P = 0.005). The mean (+/- SD) minimal luminal diameters immediately after the procedure were 2.48 +/- 0.39 mm in the stent group and 2.05 +/- 0.33 mm in the angioplasty group; at follow-up, the diameters were 1.82 +/- 0.64 mm in the stent group and 1.73 +/- 0.55 mm in the angioplasty group (P = 0.09), which correspond to rates of restenosis (diameter of stenosis, > or = 50 percent) of 22 and 32 percent, respectively (P = 0.02). Peripheral vascular complications necessitating surgery, blood transfusion, or both were more frequent after stenting than after balloon angioplasty (13.5 vs. 3.1 percent, P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the stent group than in the angioplasty group (8.5 vs. 3.1 days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Over seven months of follow-up, the clinical and angiographic outcomes were better in patients who received a stent than in those who received standard coronary angioplasty. However, this benefit was achieved at the cost of a significantly higher risk of vascular complications at the access site and a longer hospital stay.

摘要

背景

球囊扩张式冠状动脉支架旨在预防冠状动脉血管成形术后的冠状动脉再狭窄。这些装置可使已扩张部位的冠状动脉保持通畅。然而,与标准球囊血管成形术相比,支架置入术是否能改善长期血管造影和临床结局尚不清楚。

方法

总共520例稳定型心绞痛且有单一冠状动脉病变的患者被随机分配至支架植入组(262例患者)或标准球囊血管成形术组(258例患者)。主要临床终点为死亡、脑血管意外、心肌梗死、冠状动脉搭桥手术需求,或在初始手术时或随后7个月内对先前治疗病变进行的第二次经皮介入治疗。主要血管造影终点为随访时的最小管腔直径,由定量冠状动脉造影确定。

结果

排除后,支架组52例患者(20%)和血管成形术组7例患者(30%)达到主要临床终点(相对风险0.68;95%置信区间0.50至0.92;P = 0.02)。临床事件发生率的差异主要是由于支架组对第二次冠状动脉血管成形术的需求减少(相对风险0.58;95%置信区间0.40至0.85;P = 0.005)。术后即刻支架组的平均(±标准差)最小管腔直径为2.48±0.39 mm,血管成形术组为2.05±0.33 mm;随访时,支架组直径为1.82±0.64 mm,血管成形术组为1.73±0.55 mm(P = 0.09),分别对应再狭窄率(狭窄直径≥50%)为22%和32%(P = 0.02)。与球囊血管成形术相比,支架置入术后需要手术、输血或两者兼有的外周血管并发症更为常见(13.5%对3.1%,P < .001)。支架组的平均住院时间明显长于血管成形术组(8.5天对3.1天,P < 0.001)。

结论

在7个月的随访中,接受支架置入术的患者的临床和血管造影结局优于接受标准冠状动脉血管成形术的患者。然而,这种益处是以血管入路部位血管并发症风险显著增加和住院时间延长为代价实现的。

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