不同血运重建策略对急性心肌梗死合并多支血管病变患者的疗效对比

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-8535.2018.02.021

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的分析与比较不同血运重建策略对急性心肌梗死合并多支血管病变患者的疗效,以探讨其临床价值。方法选取本院在2012年8月—2015年8月期间收治的急性心肌梗死合并多支血管病变患者,对每个患者均成功行PCI后,按随机数字表法分为实验组与对照组,实验组于发病后7～10天行预防性急诊PCI,并对非梗死相关血管病变进行干预;对照组则根据患者的缺血情况对非梗死相关血管病变行急诊PCI。随访2年,并记录2组患者主要心脏不良事件、其它心血管事件以及再次急诊PCI情况。结果共有450例患者完成2年的随访,实验组患者有226例,对照组患者有224例。2组患者的全因病死率(χ²=7.040,P=0.008)、心脏不良事件(P均>0.05)以及心力衰竭发生率(χ²=1. 527,P=0.217)均无统计学差异。与对照组相比,实验组再发心绞痛(χ²=21.092,P<0.001)、心因性再住院(χ²=22.893,P<0.001)和再次支架治疗(χ²=17.835,P<0.001)的发生率均明显较低,而其相关血管血运重建率较高。且实验组随访2年时,β受体阻滞剂(χ²=7.040,P=0.008)和硝酸酯类药物(χ²=63.889,P<0.001)服用率均明显较高。结论急性心肌梗死合并多支血管病变患者在成功行急诊干预梗死相关血管后,且预防性干预非梗死相关血管,可使再发心绞痛、再次支架治疗以及心因性再住院的发生率显著降低。

关键词: 血运重建策略, 急性心肌梗死, 多支血管病变, 非梗死相关血管, 临床疗效

Abstract: Objective By analyzing and comparing the effects of different revascularization strategies on patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with multi-vessel disease, to explore its clinical value.Methods Selecting the patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with multi-vessel disease from August, 2012 to August, 2015 in our hospital (Zhaoqing No.2 People's Hospital), after each patient was successfully treated with PCI, divided them into experimental group and control group by random number table method, the experimental groups were treated with preventive emergency PCI after the onset 7-10 days, and the intervention of non-infarct-related vascular diseases were done;the control groups were treated with emergency PCI for the non-infarct-related vascular diseases according to the patient's lack of blood. Visiting them randomly for 2 years, the main cardiac adverse events, other cardiovascular events and one more emergency PCI situation in the two groups were recorded.Results A total of 450 patients completed two years of follow-up, with 226 patients in the experimental group and 224 patients in the control group. All-cause mortality (χ2=7.040,P=0.008), cardiac adverse events (P> 0.05)and incidence of heart failure (χ2=1. 527,P=0.217) were no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Compared with the control group, the incidence of angina pectoris (χ2=21.092,P<0.001), cardiologic rehospitalization (χ2=22.893,P<0.001)and one more stent treatment (χ2=17.835,P<0.001) of the experimental group was significantly lower, but the revascularization rate was higher of their related blood vessels. And when the experimental group was followed up for 2 years, the taking rate of β-blockers (χ2=7.040,P=0.008) and nitrates (χ2=63.889,P<0.001) was significantly higher.Conclusion After the patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with multi-vessel disease were successfully treated with emergency PCI to intervene the infarct-related blood vessels, and at the same time the intervention of the non-infarct-related blood vessels were done, the recurrence of angina pectoris, stent treatment and cardiopulmonary rehospitalization was significantly reduced.

Key words: revascularization strategy, acute myocardial infarction, multi-vessel disease, non-infarct-related blood vessel, clinical effect

全楚杰, 翟永新, 梁国泉, 陈以明, 伍文锋. 不同血运重建策略对急性心肌梗死合并多支血管病变患者的疗效对比[J]. 广州医药, 2018, 49(2): 80-83.

Quan Chujie, Zhai Yongxin, Liang Guochuan, Chen Yiming, Wu Wenfeng. Comparison of the effects of different revascularization strategies on patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with multi-vessel disease[J]. Guangzhou Medical Journal, 2018, 49(2): 80-83.

参考文献

[1] 陈翀昊,王广燕,苏衡,等.瑞舒伐他汀与阿托伐他汀对早发冠心病急性心肌梗死患者的近期疗效[J].中国临床药理学杂志,2013,29(2):126-128.
[2] 张新梅,胡允兆,陈样新等.急性心肌梗死住院死亡危险因素分析[J]. 广东医学,2013,34(2):260-263。
[3] 赵睿,卢前微,杨蕊,等.急性心肌梗死患者院外治疗依从性及远期生存状况分析[J].中南大学学报(医学版),2016,41(2):163-168.
[4] TAO T, WANG H, WANG S X, et al. Long-term outcomes of high-risk elderly male patients with multivessel coronary disease: optimal medical therapy versus revascularization[J]. J Geriatr Cardiol,201,13(2):152-157.
[5] ABDULBAKI A, MODI K, TAKALKAR A M. Relative merits of single-photon emission computed tomography and pet perfusion imaging: a cardiologist's view[J]. PET Clin,2011,6(4):431-439.
[6] SCHLOTTER F, DE WAHA S, EITEL I, et al. Interventional post-myocardial infarction ventricular septal defect closure: a systematic review of current evidence[J]. Euro Intervention, 2016,12(1):94-102.
[7] 张宏,姚威,罗平,等.瑞舒伐他汀用于直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的疗效观察[J].中国药业,2013,22(5):77-78.
[8] 李拥军.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的并发症[J].中国介入心脏病学杂志,2016,24(1):55-57.
[9] 史利锋,林平.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者术后心脏不良事件的发生情况及影响因素[J].中华护理杂志,2015,50(12):1449-1453.
[10] FAM J M, FELIX C, van GEUNS R J, et al. Initial experience with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for treatment of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction: a propensity-matched comparison to metallic drug eluting stents 18-month follow-up of the BVS STEMI first study[J].Euro Intervention,2016,12(1):30-37.
[11] ZHENG J, CHENG J, ZHANG Q,et al. Association between glycosylated hemoglobin level and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients after percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Medicine, 2016,95(19):e3696.
[12] 赵祥淘,杨松,陈燕春,等.青年人急性心肌梗死危险因素及冠脉病变特点[J].山东医药,2014,54(7):45-47.
[13] 张北玉,刘灿君,孙爽,等.瑞舒伐他汀早期干预治疗对急性心肌梗死患者行急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中冠状动脉血流的影响[J].中国循环杂志,2013,28(4):270-273.
[14] AN S G, LEE H W. Percutaneous coronary intervention for a recent myocardial infarction with an anomalous right coronary artery arising from the mid left anterior descending coronary artery[J]. Chin Med J (Engl),2016,129(10):1259-1260.
[15] LASSEN J F, HOLM N R, BANNING A, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: 11th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club[J]. Euro Intervention,2016,12(1):38-46.
[16] DANGAS G D, SCHOOS M M, STEG P G, et al. Early stent thrombosis and mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in st-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a patient-level analysis of 2 randomized trials[J]. Circ Cardiovasc Interv,2016,9(5):e003272.