Clinical follow-up outcomes of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-9026.2010.06.006
- VernacularTitle:药物支架和裸支架治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者的随访研究
- Author:
Chonghui WANG
;
Lizhi LIU
;
Zhujun SHEN
;
Quan FANG
;
Shuyang ZHANG
;
Zhongjie FAN
;
Xiaofeng JIN
;
Hongzhi XIE
;
Zhenyu LIU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Myocardial infarction;
Angioplasty,transluminal,percutaneous coronary;
Stents;
Prognosis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Geriatrics
2010;29(6):461-463
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the effects of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ASTEMI) receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods The 217patients with ASTEMI receiving PPCI from Jan. 2005 to Dec. 2007 were enrolled in this study. And they were divided into two groups: DES group (n=92) and BMS group (n=125). The baseline characteristics including age, gender, angiographic characteristics, stents characteristics, Killip classification, cardiac troponin I(CTnI)levels, left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF), hemoglobin levels, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity and smoking of the two groups were collected.Clinical follow-up end point were major adverse cardiac event(MACE)including death, acute myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stent restenosis. Clinical follow-up duration was(16.8±11.3) months (6-38 months). Results The average age (years), rate of Killip classification (class 2, 3, 4), average diameter (mm) of stent were significantly higher in BMS group than in DES group(64.6±11.9 vs. 61.2±11.8, t=2.09, P=0.037;25.9% vs. 12.2%, χ2=5.53, P=0.019;3.07±0.38 vs. 2.91±0. 40, t=2.78, P=0.006). And the average LVEF (%) was significantly lower in BMS group than in DES group (55.4±11.9 vs. 60.3±12.8, t= -2.57, P=0.011). The average length (mm) of stent, rate of stent post dilatation and diabetes were significantly higher in DES group than inBMSgroup (32.8±16.2 vs. 26.2±11.2, t=-3.54, P=0.001;45.7% vs. 21.6%, χ2=13.85, P=0. 000;28.2% vs. 16.0%, χ2=4.77, P=0.030). MACE occurred in 36 patients during clinical follow-up, 6 in DES group and 30 in BMS group. Incidence of MACE was significantly lower in DES group than in BMS group(6.5% vs. 24.0%, χ2=11.70, P＜0.01). Conclusions Using DES in ASTEMI patients is safe and may improve clinical outcomes by reducing incidence of MACE compared with BMS.
