期刊文献+

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后非梗死相关动脉处理对老年人急性心肌梗死预后的影响 被引量:10

Impacts of treating stratege for non-infarct-related artery on clinical prognosis in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction after urgent percutaneous coronary intervention
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的老年急性心肌梗死(AMI)多支血管病变急诊经皮冠状动脉(冠脉)介入治疗(PCI)后非梗死相关动脉采用药物或药物联合PCI治疗预后的比较。方法2007年8月至2011年8月年龄75岁以上AMI多支病变患者,接受PCI治疗75例,根据对非梗死相关动脉病变是否再次PCI将患者分为两组,其中PCI组30例,药物组45例。对比分析治疗平均1年后两组主要心血管事件发生率和冠脉造影结果的差异。结果随访终点行冠脉造影,药物组和PCI组急诊时行PCI治疗的梗死相关动脉支架内再狭窄[分别为1例(2.2%)和0例]、节段内晚期管腔丢失[5例(11.1%)和3例(10.0%)]、支架内血栓形成[1例(2.2%)和1例(3.3%)]、靶病变再次紧急血运重建[2例(4.4%)和1例(3.3%)]比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2值分别为0.00、0.00、2.03、0.00,均P〉0.05)。PCI组患者心绞痛复发率14例(46.7%)、再次因心原性疾病人院5例(16.7%),均低于药物组的36例(80.0%)、18例(40.0%),差异有统计学意义(χ2值分别为9.00,4.61,P〈0.01和P〈o.05)。继发性心力衰竭、再次非致命性心肌梗死、严重心律失常发生、全因死亡及心原性病死率比较,两组差异无统计学意义(χ2值分别为0.09、0.00、0.00、0.00、0.00,均P〉0.05)。结论老年AMI患者非梗死相关动脉血管采取PCI治疗较单纯药物治疗减少心绞痛复发率、再次因心原性疾病人院率。 Objective To investigate the impacts of treating stratege for non-infarct-related artery on clinical prognosis in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods From Augst 2007 to Augst 2010, a total of 75 elderly AMI patients (aged 75 years and over) were treated by urgent PCI and confirmed as multivessel coronary disease in our hospital. Among them, 30 patients received medicine combined with PCI once again (PCI group) and 45 patients received only medicine treatemt (medicine group). The major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and results of coronary angiography after treatment for average one year were compared between the two groups. Results There were no significant differences in the rates of in-stent restenosis[1 ease(2.2%)vs. 0 case], late loss of in-segment lumen [5 cases(11.1%)vs. 3 cases(10.0%)], stentthrombosis[1 case(2.2%)vs. 1 case(3.3%)1 and target vessel revascularization(2 cases(4.4%)vs. 1 case(3.3%)] between medicine group and PCI group (χ2 =0.00, 0.00, 2.03 and 0.00, all P〉0.05). The propertions of angina recurrence and second hospital admission for heart diseases were lower in PCI group than in medicine group [36 cases (80.0%)vs. 14 cases(46.7%),lScases(40.0G)vs. 5 cases(16.7%), χ2=9.00, 4.61, P〈0.01and P%0. 051. However, no differences were found in the secondary heart failure, recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction, severe arrhythmia, all-cause death and mortality rate of cardiovascular disease between the two groups (χ2 =0.09, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 and 0.00, all P〈0.05). Conclusions Compared with single medicine therapy, the medicine combined with PCI for non-infarct-related artery may decrease the rates of angina recurrence and second hospital admission for heart diseases in elderly patients with AMI.
出处 《中华老年医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2012年第3期189-192,共4页 Chinese Journal of Geriatrics
基金 基金项目:浦东新区社会发展局卫生科技重点合作项目(PW2009D-2) 上海市浦东新区卫生系统重点学科建设资助(PWZXK2010-05)
关键词 心肌梗死 血管成形术 经腔 经皮冠状动脉 随访研究 Myocardial infarction Angioplasty, transluminal, pereutaneous coronary Follow-up studies
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献36

  • 1李志忠,SidneyL,JuergensCP.老年患者无保护左主干冠状动脉旋磨及支架治疗[J].中华老年医学杂志,2004,23(11):828-829. 被引量:4
  • 2Lee MS, Yang T, Dhoot J, et al. Meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention and drug-eluting stents in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery narrowings. Am J Cardiol, 2010,105 : 1070-1075.
  • 3Boudriot E, Thiele H, Walther T, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. J Am Coil Cardinl.2011.57. 538-545.
  • 4Valgimigli M, Malagutti P, ranillo GAR,et al. Single- vessel versus bifurcation stenting for the treatment of distal left main coronary artery disease in the drug- eluting stenting era. Clinical and angiographic insights into the Rapamyein- Eluting Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital ( RESEARCH ) and Taxus-Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registries. Am Heart J, 2006,152 : 896-902.
  • 5Mehilli J,Kastrati J, Byrne RA, et al. for the ISAR- LEFT-MAIN ( intracoronary stenting and angiographic results : drug-eluting stents for unprotected coronary left main lesions ) study investigators, paclitaxet versus sirolimus-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009,53:1760-1768.
  • 6Kandzari DE,Colombo A,Park SJ, et al. On behalf of the American College of Cardiology Interventional Scientific Council. Revascularization for unprotected left main disease, evolution of the evidence basis to redefine treatment standards. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009,54:1576-1588.
  • 7Palmerini T, Sangiorgi D, Marzocchi A, et al. Impact of acute coronary syndromes on two-year clinical outcomes in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. AmJ Cardiol, 2010,105:174-178.
  • 8Park DW, Seung KB, Kim YH, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. 5-year results from the MAIN- COMPARE (Revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: comparison of percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus surgical revascularization) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol,2010, 56:117-124.
  • 9Palmerini T, Barlocco F, Santarelli A, et al. A comparison between coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and drug eluting stent for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in elderly patients (aged375 years). Eur Heart J, 2007, 28:2714-2719.
  • 10Rodes-Cabau J, deBlois J, Bertrand OF, et al. Nonrandomized comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in octagenarians. Circulation,2008, 118 : 2374- 2381.

共引文献26

同被引文献95

  • 1费爱华.男性急性冠状动脉综合征患者血清睾酮与血管性假血友病因子改变的关系[J].实用诊断与治疗杂志,2007,21(10):727-728. 被引量:5
  • 2杨绍波,李刚,董路兵,等.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死的临床治疗体会.医药前沿,2012,2(6):129-130.
  • 3黄姝芬.急性心肌梗死患者血浆sCD40L水平与细胞黏附分子改变的临床意义[J].实用诊断与治疗杂志,2007,21(11):828-829. 被引量:3
  • 4Shihara M, Tsutsui H, Tsiichibashi M, et al. In - hospital and one- year outcome for patients undergoing pereutaneous coronary intervention for acut myocardial infaretion [ J ]. Am J Cardiol, 2002, 90(9): 932-936.
  • 5Almeda FQ, Snell RJ. Coronary revascularization in multivessel disease. Which is better, stents or surgery [ J ]. Postgrad Med, 2005, 118(6):11-17.
  • 6Levine GN, Bates ER, Blakenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/ SCAI Guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention[ J]. JACC, 2011 , 58(24) : e44 - e125.
  • 7O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the management of ST - elevation myocardial infarc- tion[J]. JACC, 2013, 61(4): e78-140.
  • 8Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald N J, et al. Randomized trial of preven- tive angioplasty in myocardial infarction [ J ]. N Engl J Med, 2013, 369(12) : 1115 -1123.
  • 9Bainey KR, Mehta SR, Lai T, et al. Complete vs culprit - only revascularization for patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST - segment eleva- tion myocardial infarction : A systematic review and meta - analysis [J].AmHeartJ, 2014, 167(1): 1-14.
  • 10Mohamad T, Bemal JM, Kondur A, et al. Coronary revaseulariza- tion strategy for ST elevation myocardial infarction with multives- sel disease : experience and results at 1 - year follow - up [ J ]. Am J Ther, 2011, 18(2) : 92 -100.

引证文献10

二级引证文献86

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部