首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine >Clinical comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with domestic drug-eluting stents versus off pump coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main coronary artery disease
【2h】

Clinical comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with domestic drug-eluting stents versus off pump coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main coronary artery disease

机译:国产药物洗脱支架与非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术经皮冠状动脉介入治疗在未保护的左主冠状动脉疾病中的临床比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Objective: The aim of our study was to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with domestic drug-eluting stents (DES) and off pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. Methods: A total of 227 patients with ULMCA disease and underwent revascularization was included. One hundred and six patients were treated with PCI with domestic DES implantation and 121 patients with off pump CABG. Clinical outcomes with respect to the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including death any cause, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) during hospitalization and at 12-month follow-up were recorded. Results: There was no significant difference between the domestic DES and off pump CABG groups in the risk of death, non-fatal MI, stroke, and TVR during hospitalization and at 12-month follow-up. Overall in-hospital MACCE in PCI versus CABG was 0.94% versus 5.78% (P<0.05). The overall MACCE at 12-month follow up in PCI versus CABG was in 3.77% versus 3.31% (P>0.05). Conclusions: Domestic DES is feasible and safety in the treatment of ULMCA lesions. When compared with off-pump CABG, domestic DES achieved similar completeness of revascularization, similar in-hospital and 12-month follow-up outcomes. A longer follow-up is needed.
机译:目的:我们的研究目的是比较经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与家用药物洗脱支架(DES)和非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)治疗无保护的左主冠状动脉(ULMCA)的临床效果) 疾病。方法:纳入227例ULMCA疾病并进行血运重建的患者。 106例患者接受了家庭DES植入PCI治疗,而121例患者接受了非体外循环CABG治疗。记录有关住院期间和随访12个月时主要心血管和脑血管不良事件(MACCE)的临床结局,包括死亡原因,非致命性心肌梗死(MI),中风和靶血管血运重建(TVR) 。结果:住院和随访12个月时,国内DES组和非CABG组在死亡,非致命性MI,中风和TVR的风险方面无显着差异。 PCI与CABG的整体住院MACCE分别为0.94%和5.78%(P <0.05)。与CABG相比,PCI随访12个月的总MACCE率为3.77%,而CABG为3.31%(P> 0.05)。结论:国产DES治疗ULMCA病变是可行且安全的。与非体外循环CABG相比,国内DES达到了相似的血运重建完整性,相似的住院和12个月随访结果。需要更长的随访时间。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号