切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华临床医师杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (09) : 647 -652. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2019.09.002

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

药物球囊治疗冠状动脉支架内再狭窄的临床疗效
陈新军1,(), 郑若龙1, 徐卓文1, 杨增芯1, 李伟章1, 钱惠东1, 蒋文龙1, 张华1   
  1. 1. 214400 东南大学医学院附属江阴医院心内科
  • 收稿日期:2019-03-17 出版日期:2019-05-01
  • 通信作者: 陈新军
  • 基金资助:
    无锡市卫计委面上项目(MS201802)

Clinical efficacy of drug balloon therapy for patients with coronary artery in-stent restenosis with unstable angina pectoris

Xinjun Chen1,(), Ruolong Zheng1, Zhuowen Xu1, Zengxin Yang1, Weizhang Li1, Huidong Qian1, Wenlong Jiang1, Hua Zhang1   

  1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Jiangyin Hospital, College of Medicine, Southeast University, Jiangyin 214400, China
  • Received:2019-03-17 Published:2019-05-01
  • Corresponding author: Xinjun Chen
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Chen Xinjun, Email:
引用本文:

陈新军, 郑若龙, 徐卓文, 杨增芯, 李伟章, 钱惠东, 蒋文龙, 张华. 药物球囊治疗冠状动脉支架内再狭窄的临床疗效[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(09): 647-652.

Xinjun Chen, Ruolong Zheng, Zhuowen Xu, Zengxin Yang, Weizhang Li, Huidong Qian, Wenlong Jiang, Hua Zhang. Clinical efficacy of drug balloon therapy for patients with coronary artery in-stent restenosis with unstable angina pectoris[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(09): 647-652.

目的

探讨药物球囊治疗冠状动脉支架内再狭窄后病变血管内膜腔的变化。

方法

选取2016年5月至2017年12月确诊的不稳定型心绞痛患者,其在东南大学医学院附属江阴医院曾接受经皮冠状动脉药物洗脱支架植入术,因心绞痛再次接受冠状动脉造影检查,确定为支架内再狭窄的患者96例作为研究对象,将患者分为药物球囊治疗组(47例)及支架植入组(49例),比较术后即刻最小内膜腔面积、支架最小截面积、支架膨胀率等,术后12个月复查冠状动脉造影及血管内超声检查,比较两组心血管事件、最小内膜腔面积、支架最小截面积、内膜增生面积等。

结果

经冠状动脉造影及血管内超声检查:药物球囊治组疗术后即刻靶病变最小内膜腔面积和支架最小截面积均小于支架植入组[(10.8±2.8)mm2 vs (11.8±3.2)mm2;(11.2±2.9)mm2 vs (12.0±3.2)mm2],差异具有统计学意义(t=2.112、1.987,P=0.025、0.042);支架相对膨胀率药物球囊治疗组低于支架组(86.7% vs 90.3%),差异具有统计学意义(χ2=2.012,P=0.045)。术后随访12个月,药物球囊治疗组发生心血管事件7例,支架植入组心血管事件9例,2组差异无统计学意义(P=0.699);药物球囊治疗组与支架植入组支架植入处最小内膜腔面积[(10.6±2.6)mm2 vs (10.8±2.7)mm2]比较,差异无统计学意义(P=0.896);2组患者支架植入处内膜均有增生,但药物球囊治疗组与支架植入组内膜增生面积[(0.30±0.12)mm2 vs (0.39±0.15)mm2]比较,差异无统计学意义(P=0.845);药物球囊治疗组与支架植入组支架最小截面积[(10.9±2.7)mm2 vs (11.2±3.0)mm2]比较,差异无统计学意义(P=0.723)。

结论

药物球囊治疗支架内再狭窄后12个月其靶病变血管最小内膜腔面积、支架最小截面积、内膜增生面积与支架植入组相当,临床应用安全可靠。

Objective

To explore the changes of endovascular lumen after drug balloon therapy for coronary artery in-stent restenosis in patients with unstable angina pectoris.

Methods

Ninety-six patients with unstable angina pectoris who had previously undergone coronary artery drug-eluting stent implantation and developed in-stent restenosis were tested by coronary arteriography at the Affiliated Jiangyin Hospital of College of Medicine of Southeast University. The patients were divided into either a drug balloon therapy group (47 cases) or a Nano stent implantation group (49 cases). The minimal intima cavity area, minimum bracket section area, and neointimal area were compared at postoperative 12 months by intravascular unltrasound (IVUS). Cardiovascular events and bleeding events were compared during postoperative 12 months.

Results

The minimal intima cavity area and minimum bracket section area were significantly smaller in the drug balloon therapy group than in the Nano stent implantation group immediately after operation [(10.8±2.8) mm2 vs (11.8±3.2) mm2; (11.2±2.9) mm2 vs (12.0±3.2) mm2, P=0.025 and 0.042, respectively]. There were seven cases of cardiovascular events in the drug balloon therapy group and nine cases in the Nano stent implantation group during postoperative 12 months (P=0.699). There was no significant difference in the minimum intimal cavity area between the drug balloon group and the Nano stent group [(10.6±2.6) mm2 vs (10.6±2.6) mm2; P=0.896]. Intimal hyperplasia was found in both groups, but the neointimal area was (0.30±0.12) mm2 in the drug balloon therapy group and (0.39±0.15) mm2 in the Nano stent implantation group at postoperative 12 months (P=0.845). There was also no significant difference in minimum bracket section area at postoperative 12 months between the two groups [(10.9±2.7) mm vs (11.2±3.0) mm2, P=0.723].

Conclusion

Drug-eluting balloon therapy for in-stent restenosis is clinically safe and reliable compared with Nano stent implantation.

表1 2组支架内再狭窄患者一般临床情况比较
表2 2组支架内再狭窄患者冠状动脉造影情况
表3 2组支架内再狭窄患者手术成功率及术后即刻血管内超声检查比较
表4 2组支架内再狭窄患者术后12个月心脑血管事件及大出血事件比较(例)
表5 术后12个月部分支架内再狭窄患者血管内超声检查结果(mm2±s
1
Kang SH, Park KW, Kang DY, et al. Biodegradable-polymer drug- eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis [J]. Eur Heart J, 2014, 35(17): 1147-1158.
2
Xu B, Gao R, Wang J, et al. A prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of paclitaxel-coated balloon versus paclitaxel-eluting stent for the treatment of drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis: results from the PEPCAD China ISR tria [J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2014, 7(2): 204-211.
3
Alfonso F, Pérez-Vizcayno MJ, Cárdenas A, et al. Rationale and design of the RIBS IV randomised clinical trial (drug-eluting balloons versuseverolimus-eluting stents for patients with drug-eluting stent restenosis) [J]. Euro Intervention, 2015, 11(3): 336-342.
4
Habara S, Kadota K, Kanazawa T, et al. Paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter compared with drug-eluting stent for drug-eluting stentrestenosis in routine clinical practice [J]. Euro Intervention, 2016, 11(10): 1098-1105.
5
中华医学会心血管病学分会. 非ST段抬高型急性冠脉综合征诊断和治疗指南(2016) [J]. 中华心血管杂志, 2017, 45(5): 359-376.
6
中华医学会心血管病学分会介入心脏病学组,中国医师协会心血管内科医师分会血栓防治专业委员会,中华心血管病杂志编辑委员会. 中国经皮冠状动脉介入治疗指南(2016) [J]. 中华心血管杂志, 2016, 44(5): 382-400.
7
《药物涂层球囊临床应用中国专家共识》专家组. 药物涂层球囊临床应用中国专家共识 [J]. 中国介入心脏病学杂志, 2016, 24(2): 61-67.
8
王悦喜,阿荣,任保军, 等. 70岁以上冠心病患者支架植入术后影响预后因素 [J]. 中华老年医学杂志, 2012, 31(2): 110-112.
9
Cassese S, Byrne RA, Tada T, et al. Incidence and predictors of restenosis after coronary stenting in 10 004 patients with surveillance angiography [J]. Heart, 2014, 100(2): 153-159.
10
Habara S, Mitsudo K, Kadota K, et al. Effectiveness of paclitaxel- eluting balloon catheter in patients with sirolimus-eluting stentrestenosis [J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2011, 4(2): 149-154.
11
Wöhrle J. Drug-coatedballoons for coronary and peripheral interventional procedures [J]. Cur Cardiol Rep, 2012, 14(5): 635-641.
12
王悦喜,阿荣,张迎军, 等. 紫杉醇药物球囊治疗65岁及以上患者冠状动脉支架内再狭窄疗效及安全性探讨 [J]. 中华老年医学杂志, 2017, 36(10): 1061-1064.
[1] 王杰, 袁泉, 王玥琦, 乔佳君, 谭春丽, 夏仲元, 刘守尧. 溃疡油在糖尿病足溃疡治疗中的应用效果及安全性观察[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(06): 480-484.
[2] 聂生军, 王钰, 王毅, 鲜小庆, 马生成. 复方倍他米松局部注射联合光动力疗法治疗小型瘢痕疙瘩的临床疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(05): 404-410.
[3] 莫淇舟, 苏劲, 黄健, 李健维, 李思宁, 柳建军. 智能控压输尿管软镜碎石吸引取石术在直径10~25 mm上尿路结石中的应用[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 497-502.
[4] 李义亮, 苏拉依曼·牙库甫, 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 机器人与腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补术联合Nissen 胃底折叠术短期疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 512-517.
[5] 周艳, 李盈, 周小兵, 程发辉, 何恒正. 不同类型补片联合Nissen 胃底折叠术修补食管裂孔疝的疗效及复发潜在危险因素[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 528-533.
[6] 王小琴, 汪丽, 崔建英. 无张力疝修补术治疗慢性肾功能衰竭合并腹股沟疝患者的疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 538-542.
[7] 王亚岚, 倪婧, 余世庆, 陶银花, 张荣. 尼达尼布抗纤维化治疗特发性肺纤维化的耐受性和疗效预测因素分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 750-755.
[8] 詹济玮, 蔡柳春, 温琼娜, 郭石生, 温春妹, 温鹤明. 布地格福联合噻托溴铵治疗AECOPD 的临床分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 823-826.
[9] 魏孔源, 仵正, 王铮, 黎韡. 机器人胰腺中段切除后远端胰腺消化道不同重建方式初探[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 295-300.
[10] 陈杰, 武明胜, 李一金, 李虎, 向源楚, 荣新奇, 彭健. 低位直肠癌冷冻治疗临床初步分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 494-498.
[11] 史彬, 司远. 益气和络方联合缬沙坦治疗气阴两虚兼血瘀证IgA 肾病的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 306-312.
[12] 周敏, 徐阳, 胡莹, 黄先凤. 维持性血液透析患者血清β-CTX、N-MID 和PICP 与冠状动脉钙化的关系及其诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 256-260.
[13] 韩俊岭, 王刚, 马厉英, 连颖, 徐慧. 维生素D 联合匹维溴铵治疗腹泻型肠易激综合征患者疗效及对肠道屏障功能指标的影响研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 560-564.
[14] 阳跃, 庹晓晔, 崔子豪, 欧阳四民, 林海阳, 胡景宇, 胡银, 李涛, 赵景峰, 郝岱峰, 冯光. 改良“阅读者”皮瓣修复骶尾部压疮的疗效[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 751-755.
[15] 克地尔牙·马合木提, 胡波, 杨琼, 闫素, 胡岚卿, 高沛沛, 姚恩生. 依达拉奉右莰醇对急性脑梗死后认知功能障碍的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 459-466.
阅读次数
全文


摘要