摘要
目的:观察冠状动脉(冠脉)临界病变的非心肌梗死冠心病患者行介入治疗的预后。方法:入选650例冠脉临界病变的非急性心肌梗死冠心病患者,分为单纯药物治疗组448例和介入治疗组(药物基础上加介入治疗)202例。平均随访(3.95±1.24)年,观察2组主要心脏不良事件(再发心绞痛、心律失常、心力衰竭和再次靶血管介入)的发生率及远期生存率。结果:介入治疗组再发心绞痛、心力衰竭及靶血管需再次介入治疗的比例均高于药物治疗组(53.5%∶33.7%、15.8%∶9.2%、31.7%∶11.8%,P值分别为0.000、0.015及0.000)。Kep-lan-Meier生存分析发现,2组远期生存率差异无统计学意义(P=0.120)。结论:对冠脉临界病变的冠心病患者,介入治疗增加主要心脏不良事件的发生率,并不优于药物治疗。
Objective：To observe the prognosis of coronary borderline lesion treated with percutaneous coro nary intervention （PCI） in patients with coronary heart disease except for myocardial infarction. Method： A total of 650 patients with coronary artery disease except for myocardial infarction were enrolled and divided into the MT group （n = 448） in which patients were given optimal medicine therapy only and the PCI group （n = 202） in which patients were treated with PCI as well as optimal medicine treatment. All the patients were followed up for 1 to 5 Faverage （3.95±1.24）] years to record the incidence of main cardiovascular adverse events （recurrent angina, arrhythmia, heart failure and target coronary revascularization） and long-time survival rate. Result： The patients in PCI group had higher incidences of recurrent angina, heart failure and target coronary revascularization than those in MT group （53.5% vs 33.7%, 15.8% vs 9.2%, 31.7% vs 11.80%, P=0. 000, 0. 015 and 0. 000, respective ly）. Keplan-Meier survival analysis showed that there were no significant differences in the long-time survival rate between the two groups. Conclusion： PCI increases the incidence of main cardiovascular adverse events and is not better than optimal medicine treatment in patients with borderline coronary lesion.
出处
《临床心血管病杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2013年第5期338-340,共3页
Journal of Clinical Cardiology
关键词
临界病变
冠状动脉
药物治疗
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗
预后
borderline lesion
coronary artery
medicine treatment
percutaneous coronary intervention treat-ment
prognosis
