论文部分内容阅读
目的比较三种经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)冠状动脉(冠脉)真性分叉病变的临床效果。方法回顾性比较92例95处冠脉真性分叉病变三种处理方法的临床资料。支架置入33例35处(A组);单纯球囊扩张27例28处(B组);未处理32例32处(C组)。随访6～12个月,评价血管再狭窄率和程度及主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生情况。结果 MACE发生率:A组12.12%,B组14.81%,C组18.75%(P>0.05)。冠脉造影(CAG)示边支血管开口狭窄程度:A组(46.18±11.15)%,B组(59.19±17.17)%,C组(65.13±19.16)%(P<0.01);主支血管再狭窄发生率:A组8.57%,B组7.14%,C组6.25%(P>0.05)。结论冠脉真性分叉病变三种不同PCI处理后的近期临床疗效差异无统计学意义,单纯主支支架植入方法简单、安全、有效。
Objective To compare the clinical effects of three kinds of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery (coronary artery) bifurcation lesions. Methods The clinical data of 92 cases of 95 cases of coronary artery bifurcation lesions were retrospectively analyzed. Forty-five stents were placed in 35 cases (group A), 27 cases (group B) were balloon-expanded, and 32 cases were untreated (group C). The patients were followed up for 6 to 12 months to evaluate the rate and degree of vascular restenosis and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Results The incidence of MACE was 12.12% in group A, 14.81% in group B and 18.75% in group C (P> 0.05). Coronary angiography (CAG) showed the degree of stenosis in collateral vessels: 46.18 ± 11.15% in group A, 59.19 ± 17.17% in group B and 65.13 ± 19.16% in group C (P <0.01) The incidence of stenosis was 8.57% in group A, 7.14% in group B and 6.25% in group C (P> 0.05). Conclusion There are no significant differences in the clinical efficacy of three different PCI treatments after PCI. The simple primary stent implantation method is simple, safe and effective.