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]. 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]. 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] 张婉微, 秦芸芸, 蔡绮哲, 林明明, 田润雨, 金姗, 吕秀章. 心肌收缩早期延长对非ST段抬高型急性冠脉综合征患者冠状动脉严重狭窄的预测价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(10): 1016-1022.
[2] 张华, 孙宇, 乡世健, 李樱媚, 王小群. 循环肿瘤细胞预测晚期胃肠癌患者化疗药物敏感性的研究[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 422-425.
[3] 莫波, 王佩, 王恒, 何志军, 梁俊, 郝志楠. 腹腔镜胃癌根治术与改良胃癌根治术治疗早期胃癌的疗效[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 644-647.
[4] 索郎多杰, 高红桥, 巴桑顿珠, 仁桑. 腹腔镜下不同术式治疗肝囊型包虫病的临床疗效分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 670-673.
[5] 唐浩, 梁平, 徐小江, 曾凯, 文拨辉. 三维重建指导下腹腔镜右半肝加尾状叶切除治疗Bismuth Ⅲa型肝门部胆管癌的临床研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 688-692.
[6] 汪毅, 许思哲, 任章霞. 胸乳入路腔镜单侧甲状腺叶切除术与开放手术对分化型甲状腺癌患者术后恢复的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 542-545.
[7] 顾睿祈, 方洪生, 蔡国响. 循环肿瘤DNA检测在结直肠癌诊治中的应用与进展[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 453-459.
[8] 邰清亮, 施波, 侍新宇, 陈国梁, 陈俊杰, 武冠廷, 王索, 孙金兵, 顾闻, 叶建新, 何宋兵. 腹腔镜次全结肠切除术治疗顽固性慢传输型便秘的疗效分析[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 478-483.
[9] 徐红莉, 杨钰琳, 薛清, 张茜, 马丽虹, 邱振刚. 体外冲击波治疗非特异性腰痛疗效的系统评价和Meta分析[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(05): 307-314.
[10] 梁文龙, 曹杰, 黄庆, 林泳, 黄红丽, 杨平, 李冠炜, 胡鹤. 信迪利单抗联合瑞戈非尼治疗晚期结直肠癌的疗效与安全性分析[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 409-413.
[11] 高显奎, 赵太云, 陆兴俊, 张洪领, 房修罗, 闫碧春, 王胤, 王永翠, 刘苗苗, 冉若男. 内镜电凝止血与组织胶注射治疗上消化道溃疡伴出血的疗效观察[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 452-455.
[12] 姜里蛟, 张峰, 周玉萍. 多学科诊疗模式救治老年急性非静脉曲张性上消化道大出血患者的临床观察[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 520-524.
[13] 张景旭, 李德舫, 由上可, 张玉田. 贝伐珠单抗与安罗替尼联合奥沙利铂治疗晚期直肠癌的临床疗效[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 289-293.
[14] 杨镠, 秦岚群, 耿茜, 李栋庆, 戚春建, 蒋华. 可溶性免疫检查点对胃癌患者免疫治疗疗效和预后的预测价值[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 305-311.
[15] 李莹倩, 李华山. 基于真实世界的完全性直肠脱垂治疗方式评价[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 700-705.
阅读次数
全文


摘要