经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)可改善冠状动脉血流,是冠心病的重要治疗手段^([1]),然而无论是单纯球囊扩张(plain old balloon angioplasty,POBA)、裸金属支架(bare metal support,BMS)还是药物洗脱支...经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)可改善冠状动脉血流,是冠心病的重要治疗手段^([1]),然而无论是单纯球囊扩张(plain old balloon angioplasty,POBA)、裸金属支架(bare metal support,BMS)还是药物洗脱支架(drug eluting stent,DES),均可导致冠状动脉的急性闭塞和再狭窄^([2-4])。虽然DES的使用和技术迭代已逐渐降低冠状动脉支架内再狭窄(ISR)发生率,但近年来关于DES及二代DES置入后发生ISR的报道仍屡见不鲜^([2,5-6])。展开更多
目的比较雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架(sirolimus-eluting stent,SES)与紫杉醇药物洗脱支架(paclitaxel-eluting stent,PES)治疗冠心病的疗效与安全性。方法计算机检索PubMed、MEDLINE、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、CNKI...目的比较雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架(sirolimus-eluting stent,SES)与紫杉醇药物洗脱支架(paclitaxel-eluting stent,PES)治疗冠心病的疗效与安全性。方法计算机检索PubMed、MEDLINE、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、CNKI全文数据库,收集2006年1月至2011年10月公开发表的有关SES和PES疗效和安全性比较的随机对照试验(RCTs)。对文献质量进行严格评价后,符合要求的RCTs进行资料提取及采用RevMen5.1软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入9项RCTs,Meta分析显示:SES组与PES组病死率(OR=0.98,95%CI:0.74~1.31,P>0.05)、心肌梗死率(OR=0.86,95%CI:0.69~1.07,P>0.05)和支架内血栓发生率(OR=0.94,95%CI:0.67~1.32,P>0.05)均无统计学差异,但靶病变血运重建(TLR)率(OR=0.67,95%CI:0.51~0.89,P<0.05)、主要心脏不良事件(MACE)发生率(OR=0.08,95%CI:0.68~0.94,P<0.05)和支架内再狭窄率(OR=0.44,95%CI:0.24~0.79,P<0.05)的差异有统计学意义。结论两种药物洗脱支架治疗冠心病患者的病死率、心肌梗死率和支架内血栓发生率相似,但与PES比较,SES能明显降低支架术后TLR、MACE和支架内再狭窄的发生率。展开更多
1 文献来源
Stone GW, Lansky A J, Pocock S J, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction [J]. N Engl J Med, 2009,360(19) : 1946-1959.
Following the observation of difficulty in retrieving undeployed paclitaxel- eluting coronary stents(Taxus), we performed a retrospective analysis of 1,415 consecutive percutaneous coronary interventions and addressed...Following the observation of difficulty in retrieving undeployed paclitaxel- eluting coronary stents(Taxus), we performed a retrospective analysis of 1,415 consecutive percutaneous coronary interventions and addressed the frequency of damaged or lost undeployed coronary stents. The incidence for Cypher, Taxus, and bare metal stents was 0% , 1.5% , and 0.3% , respectively(p=0.0007). In the 11 cases involving Taxus stents, the treated vessel was invariably severely tortuous and/or calcified. The device was successfully retrieved despite being damaged and/or dislodged from the stent balloon in 5 cases; in 6 cases, stent embolization occurred. The clinical consequences were chronic claudication due to lower extremity device embolization in 1 patient and urgent surgical stent removal in 1 patient.展开更多
文摘经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)可改善冠状动脉血流,是冠心病的重要治疗手段^([1]),然而无论是单纯球囊扩张(plain old balloon angioplasty,POBA)、裸金属支架(bare metal support,BMS)还是药物洗脱支架(drug eluting stent,DES),均可导致冠状动脉的急性闭塞和再狭窄^([2-4])。虽然DES的使用和技术迭代已逐渐降低冠状动脉支架内再狭窄(ISR)发生率,但近年来关于DES及二代DES置入后发生ISR的报道仍屡见不鲜^([2,5-6])。
文摘目的比较雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架(sirolimus-eluting stent,SES)与紫杉醇药物洗脱支架(paclitaxel-eluting stent,PES)治疗冠心病的疗效与安全性。方法计算机检索PubMed、MEDLINE、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、CNKI全文数据库,收集2006年1月至2011年10月公开发表的有关SES和PES疗效和安全性比较的随机对照试验(RCTs)。对文献质量进行严格评价后,符合要求的RCTs进行资料提取及采用RevMen5.1软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入9项RCTs,Meta分析显示:SES组与PES组病死率(OR=0.98,95%CI:0.74~1.31,P>0.05)、心肌梗死率(OR=0.86,95%CI:0.69~1.07,P>0.05)和支架内血栓发生率(OR=0.94,95%CI:0.67~1.32,P>0.05)均无统计学差异,但靶病变血运重建(TLR)率(OR=0.67,95%CI:0.51~0.89,P<0.05)、主要心脏不良事件(MACE)发生率(OR=0.08,95%CI:0.68~0.94,P<0.05)和支架内再狭窄率(OR=0.44,95%CI:0.24~0.79,P<0.05)的差异有统计学意义。结论两种药物洗脱支架治疗冠心病患者的病死率、心肌梗死率和支架内血栓发生率相似,但与PES比较,SES能明显降低支架术后TLR、MACE和支架内再狭窄的发生率。
文摘1 文献来源
Stone GW, Lansky A J, Pocock S J, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction [J]. N Engl J Med, 2009,360(19) : 1946-1959.
文摘Following the observation of difficulty in retrieving undeployed paclitaxel- eluting coronary stents(Taxus), we performed a retrospective analysis of 1,415 consecutive percutaneous coronary interventions and addressed the frequency of damaged or lost undeployed coronary stents. The incidence for Cypher, Taxus, and bare metal stents was 0% , 1.5% , and 0.3% , respectively(p=0.0007). In the 11 cases involving Taxus stents, the treated vessel was invariably severely tortuous and/or calcified. The device was successfully retrieved despite being damaged and/or dislodged from the stent balloon in 5 cases; in 6 cases, stent embolization occurred. The clinical consequences were chronic claudication due to lower extremity device embolization in 1 patient and urgent surgical stent removal in 1 patient.