摘要
目的对比介入治疗与药物治疗冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病(冠心病)临界病变的长期疗效。方法将入住中国人民解放军第九二医院的257例冠状动脉临界病变患者按照治疗方法的不同分为介入治疗组(127例)和药物治疗组(130例),比较两组血管狭窄程度、血脂、病变血管数量、药物使用情况和随访期间患者的主要心血管事件发生率。结果两组血管狭窄程度、血脂、病变血管数量和药物使用情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组均无心肌梗死和死亡的发生;两组心律失常的发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。介入治疗组的再发心绞痛、心力衰竭、靶血管需再次经皮冠状动脉介入治疗率高于药物治疗组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论冠状动脉临界病变患者可根据自身情况选择介入治疗或药物治疗,但介入治疗增加主要心血管事件的发生率,效果并没有优于单纯药物治疗。
Objective To analysis and compare the long-term efficacy in patients with coronary heart disease critical lesions after interventional therapy and medicine treatment. Methods Totally 257 patients with coronary artery critical lesions were divided into percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） treatment group （127 cases） and medicine treatment group（130 cases）according to the therapeutic schedule. The differences of vascular stenosis degree,blood lipid,lesion blood vessel number,drug usage and cardiac adverse events in follow-up period of the two groups were compared. Results Vascular stenosis degree,blood lipid,lesion blood vessel number and drug usage of the two groups had no statistical difference（P〉0.05）. All the patients didn′t have the occurrence of myocardial infarction and death. There was no significant difference of incidence of arrhythmia between the two groups（P〉0.05）. The recurrences of angina pectoris,heart failure and rate of target blood vessels receiving PCI therapy once more of PCI group were higher than those of medicine therapy group ,and the differences between the two groups had statistical significance （P〈0.05）. Conclusions Patients with coronary artery critical lesions can choose intervention or medication according to their circumstance. But interventional treatment facilitates the incidence of cardiac adverse events ,whose effect is not better than pure medicine treatment.
出处
《岭南心血管病杂志》
2017年第4期377-380,共4页
South China Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases
关键词
冠状动脉疾病
临界病变
介入治疗
药物治疗
主要心血管事件
coronary artery disease
borderline lesion
intervention treatment
medicine treatment
major adverse cardiac events
