Gambhir D S, Batra R, Singh S, Sudha R, Trehen V, Arora R
Department of Cardiology, GB Pant Hospital, New Delhi.
Indian Heart J. 1998 Jan-Feb;50(1):35-9.
Lesions at the ostium of the left anterior descending coronary artery constitute a distinct group because of suboptimal results and higher restenosis rate after balloon angioplasty. Several non-balloon devices have been used to improve the outcome of dilatation of such lesions. We retrospectively compared the in-hospital and follow-up results of directional coronary artherectomy and stents for the treatment of ostial lesions of the left anterior descending artery. Out of 37 patients, 12 underwent directional coronary atherectomy and 25, stent implantation. The two strategies were deployed at different periods over the past five years. The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable in the two groups. Directional coronary atherectomy was done using 7Fr atherocath with adjunctive balloon angioplasty in all. All the stents were deployed using moderate to high pressure balloon inflation after adequate predilatation. While the pre-procedure luminal diameter stenosis was similar in the two groups (87.3 +/- 8.8% vs 89.3 +/- 7.2%; p = NS), the residual stenosis was significantly lower in the stent group (5 +/- 2.8%) compared to directional coronary atherectomy (18.7 +/- 9.8; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the primary success rate between the two devices (91.6% directional coronary atherectomy vs 100% stent; p = NS). One patient in the directional coronary atherectomy group developed acute closure followed by emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery and death. No major complication was observed in the stent group. Over a mean follow-up of 9.9 +/- 11.6 months following directional coronary atherectomy and 8.6 +/- 4.4 months after stenting, significantly higher number of patients (60%) developed recurrence of angina or any event following directional coronary atherectomy compared to stent (15.8%; p < 0.02). There was no myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery or death in either group on follow-up. The need for target lesion revascularisation was significantly higher in the directional coronary atherectomy group (50%) compared to stenting (10.5%; p < 0.02). Comparing directional coronary atherectomy with stent, the event-free survival was 80 percent vs 94.7 percent at three months and 50 percent vs 84.7 percent, both at six and nine months, respectively. In conclusion, stenting of the left anterior descending artery ostial lesion results in a significantly lesser post-procedure residual stenosis, improved in-hospital outcome, a lesser need for target lesion revascularisation and much improved event-free survival on follow-up as compared to directional coronary atherectomy. Therefore, stenting appears to be a more favourable treatment option compared to directional coronary atherectomy for the treatment of ostial lesions in the left anterior descending artery.
由于球囊血管成形术后效果欠佳且再狭窄率较高,左前降支冠状动脉开口处病变构成一个独特的组别。已使用多种非球囊装置来改善此类病变扩张的结果。我们回顾性比较了定向冠状动脉旋切术和支架置入术治疗左前降支动脉开口处病变的住院期间及随访结果。在37例患者中,12例行定向冠状动脉旋切术,25例行支架置入术。这两种策略在过去五年的不同时期采用。两组的基线临床和血管造影特征具有可比性。所有患者均使用7Fr动脉粥样斑块切除导管行定向冠状动脉旋切术并辅助球囊血管成形术。所有支架均在充分预扩张后使用中至高压球囊充盈展开。虽然两组术前管腔直径狭窄程度相似(87.3±8.8%对89.3±7.2%;p=无显著性差异),但支架组的残余狭窄(5±2.8%)显著低于定向冠状动脉旋切术组(18.7±9.8;p=0.02)。两种装置的主要成功率无显著差异(定向冠状动脉旋切术为91.6%对支架置入术为100%;p=无显著性差异)。定向冠状动脉旋切术组有1例患者发生急性闭塞,随后行急诊冠状动脉旁路移植术并死亡。支架组未观察到严重并发症。在定向冠状动脉旋切术后平均随访9.9±11.6个月以及支架置入术后平均随访8.6±4.4个月时,与支架置入术组(15.8%;p<0.02)相比,定向冠状动脉旋切术组有显著更多的患者(60%)出现心绞痛复发或任何事件。随访期间两组均无心肌梗死、冠状动脉旁路移植术或死亡。定向冠状动脉旋切术组的靶病变血运重建需求(50%)显著高于支架置入术组(10.5%;p<0.02)。与支架置入术相比,定向冠状动脉旋切术在3个月时的无事件生存率分别为80%对94.7%,在6个月和9个月时分别为50%对84.7%。总之,与定向冠状动脉旋切术相比,左前降支动脉开口处病变的支架置入术导致术后残余狭窄显著减轻、住院结局改善、靶病变血运重建需求减少且随访时无事件生存率大幅提高。因此,对于治疗左前降支动脉开口处病变,与定向冠状动脉旋切术相比,支架置入术似乎是更有利的治疗选择。