冠状动脉无保护左主干病变介入治疗70例临床疗效分析
作者:
作者单位:

(南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院心内科,江苏省南京市 210008)

作者简介:

魏钟海,硕士,主治医师,研究方向为冠心病介入治疗,E-mail为weizhnjjs@yeah.net。


Clinical Effect Analysis of 70 Cases with Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease by Interventional Therapy
Author:
Affiliation:

Department of Cardiology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210008, China)

  • 摘要
  • | |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
    摘要:

    目的 分析冠状动脉无保护左主干(UPLM)病变的临床特点和介入治疗效果及预后。方法 收集2012年1月至2013年7月在我院心内科接受UPLM病变介入治疗的70例患者的临床资料、介入治疗情况,并在其术后进行电话或门诊随访。分析这些患者的临床基本特点和介入治疗效果,探讨影响介入治疗临床预后的相关因素。结果 70例患者中男性74.3%,女性25.7%,平均年龄69.30±9.95岁。左心室射血分数(LVEF)平均为49.0%,肾小球滤过率估计值(eGFR)中位数为56 mL/(min·1.73 mm2),Syntax评分平均为26.5分,植入支架长度中位数为34 mm。所有患者平均随访13.3个月,Kaplan-Meier估算的主要不良心血管事件(MACE)累计发生率为24.5%,术后无严重出血并发症。单因素COX比例风险模型回归分析显示LVEF增高可显著降低MACE发生率(P=0.01),Syntax评分增高可显著增加MACE发生率(P=0.03);年龄≥70岁有增加MACE风险的趋势(P=0.053),eGFR升高有降低MACE风险的趋势(P=0.05)。多因素COX比例风险模型回归分析显示LVEF和eGFR对MACE发生率有预测作用(P=0.016和P=0.17),而Syntax评分以及年龄≥70岁这两个因素的作用被明显削弱。结论 UPLM病变的介入治疗是有效和安全的,LVEF和eGFR是术后MACE发生率的主要预测因素。

    Abstract:

    Aim To analyze the clinical characteristics, interventional therapy effect and prognosis for the 70 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery(UPLM) lesion. Methods Clinical data of 70 patients who accepted the interventional therapy for UPLM lesion were collected from January 2012 to July 2013 in our hospital. Telephone or clinic follow-up was carried out after the operation. The clinical characteristics and effect of interventional therapy for patients were analyzed, and the related factors that influenced the clinical prognosis of interventional therapy were explored.Results The 70 patients included 74.3% male and 25.7% female. The average age was 69.30±9.95 years. The average of the left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) was 49.0%. The median value of the estimated glomerular filtration rate(eGFR) was 56 mL/(min·1.73 mm2). The average Syntax score was 26.5 and the median value of stents length was 34 mm. All patients were followed up for average of 13.3 months. The cumulative incidence of the major adverse cardiovascular event(MACE) estimated by Kaplan-Meier was 24.5%. No severe hemorrhage complication was observed after inteventional therapy. Univariate regression analysis with COX proportional hazards model revealed that the increase of LVEF would decrease the incidence of MACE(P=0.01), and the elevation of Syntax score would increase the incidence of MACE(P=0.03). Age≥70 years tended to increase the incidence of MACE(P=0.053), while the increase of eGFR tended to reduce the incidence of MACE(P=0.05). Multivariate regression analysis with COX proportional hazards model demonstrated that LVEF and eGFR had predictive value for the MACE(P=0.016 and P=0.17), while the predictive effect of Syntax score and age≥70 years were attenuated. Conclusions The interventional therapy of UPLM disease is effective and safe. The LVEF and eGFR are the major predictors of the MACE.

    参考文献
    [1] Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, et al.Outcomes in patients with de novo left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using paclitaxel-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass graft treatment in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery(SYNTAX) trial.Circulation, 2010, 121(24):2 645-653.
    [2] Chieffo A, Magni V, Latib A, et al.5-year outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation versus coronary artery bypass graft for unprotected left main coronary artery lesions the Milan experience.JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2010, 3(6):595-601.
    [3] Moussa ID, Wong SC, Feldman T.Coronary revascularization for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease:evidence, guidelines, and judgment--Making clinical decisions in 2009.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2009, 74(3):448-458.
    [4] 韩雅玲.中国经皮冠状动脉介入治疗指南2012.中华危重症医学杂志, 2012, 5(3):169-180.
    [5] Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al.Third universal definition of myocardial infarction.Eur Heart J, 2012, 33(20):2 551-567.
    [6] Reardon MF, Nestel PJ, Craig IH, et al.Lipoprotein predictors of the severity of coronary artery disease in men and women.Circulation, 1985, 71(5):881-888.
    [7] Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al.Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease.N Engl J Med, 2011, 364(18):1 718-727.
    [8] Park DW, Kim YH, Yun SC, et al.Long-term outcomes after stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease:10-year results of bare-metal stents and 5-year results of drug-eluting stents from the ASAN-MAIN(ASAN Medical Center-Left MAIN Revascularization) Registry.J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010, 56(17):1 366-375.
    [9] Lee 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(8):1 070-075.
    [10] Tzifos V, Gatsis A, Gerasimou A, et al.Acute and long term results of unprotected left main stenting using drug eluting stents.Cardiol J, 2011, 18(2):165-170.
    [11] Lee WC, Tsai TH, Chen YL, et al.Safety and feasibility of coronary stenting in unprotected left main coronary artery disease in the real world clinical practice--a single center experience.PLoS One, 2014, 9(10):e109 281.
    [12] Sim DS, Ahn Y, Jeong MH, et al.Clinical outcome of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in patients with acute myocardial infarction.Int Heart J, 2013, 54(4):185-191.
    [13] Patel N, De Maria GL, Kassimis G, et al.Outcomes after emergency percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with unprotected left main stem occlusion:the BCIS national audit of percutaneous coronary intervention 6-year experience.JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2014, 7(9):969-980.
    [14] Biondi-Zoccai G, Sheiban I, Moretti C, et al.Appraising the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on outcomes of percutaneous drug-eluting stenting for unprotected left main disease:insights from a multicenter registry of 975 patients.Clin Res Cardiol, 2011, 100(5):403-411.
    [15] Kim YH, Park DW, Kim WJ, et al.Validation of SYNTAX(Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score for prediction of outcomes after unprotected left main coronary revascularization.JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2010, 3(6):612-623.
    [16] Steigen TK, Maeng M, Wiseth R, et al.Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions:the Nordic bifurcation study.Circulation, 2006, 114(18):1 955-961.
    [17] Erglis A, Kumsars I, Niemela M, et al.Randomized comparison of coronary bifurcation stenting with the crush versus the culotte technique using sirolimus eluting stents:the Nordic stent technique study.Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2009, 2(1):27-34.
    [18] Chen SL, Xu B, Han YL, et al.Comparison of double kissing crush versus Culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions:results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study.J Am Coll Cardiol, 2013, 61(14):1 482-488.
    [19] Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al.2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization:The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology(ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery(EACTS) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions(EAPCI).Eur Heart J, 2014, 35(37):2 541-619.
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文

魏钟海,宋杰,王涟,谢峻,张静梅,黄为,康丽娜,王昆,徐标.冠状动脉无保护左主干病变介入治疗70例临床疗效分析[J].中国动脉硬化杂志,2016,24(2):193~197.

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:2015-03-09
  • 最后修改日期:2015-04-23
  • 在线发布日期: 2016-06-30