發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-04-02 01:09

  本文選題：藥物洗脫支架　切入點(diǎn)：分叉病變　出處：《皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的:研究非左主干真性分叉病變單雙支架的長(zhǎng)期預(yù)后以及兩組間圍手術(shù)期的差異。方法:共入選98例弋磯山醫(yī)院的非左主干真性分叉病變的患者,其中79例接受單支架技術(shù)治療,19例接受雙支架技術(shù)治療。通過(guò)分析兩組間圍手術(shù)期的差異,以及隨訪兩組的主要不良心血管事件(major adverse cardiac event,MACE)、非致命性心肌梗死、靶血管血運(yùn)重建(target vessel revascularization,TVR)和靶病變血運(yùn)重建(target lesion revascularization,TLR),評(píng)估兩種術(shù)式長(zhǎng)期預(yù)后的區(qū)別。結(jié)果:本研究?jī)山M隨訪了12~116(52.9±30.2)個(gè)月,隨訪期中位數(shù)為44.5個(gè)月。在單支架亞組中,不同的邊支保護(hù)方式導(dǎo)致的術(shù)中并發(fā)癥無(wú)明顯差別。在兩組間的邊支血管參考直徑中,雙支架組邊支血管參考直徑更大,P0.001。兩組間的MACE事件發(fā)生率無(wú)明顯差異。兩組間的全因死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、TVR也基本相似。結(jié)論:不同的邊支保護(hù)技術(shù)對(duì)預(yù)防術(shù)中并發(fā)癥無(wú)明顯差異。在非左主干真性分叉病變的治療中,就長(zhǎng)時(shí)程隨訪的全因死亡、TVR、TLR等不良臨床結(jié)局而言,雙支架技術(shù)的預(yù)后并不優(yōu)于單支架技術(shù)。
[Abstract]:Objective: to study the long term prognosis and the perioperative period difference of single and double stents in non-left main trunk true bifurcation lesions. Methods: 98 patients with non-left main branch true bifurcation lesions were enrolled in this study. Among them, 79 cases were treated with single stent technique and 19 cases received double stent technique. By analyzing the difference of perioperative period between the two groups, the major adverse cardiovascular events of the two groups were followed up, major adverse cardiac events and non-fatal myocardial infarction were followed up. Target vessel revascularization (TVR) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were used to evaluate the difference of long-term prognosis between the two groups. Results: the two groups were followed up for 12116n 52.9 鹵30.2 months, with a median follow-up period of 44.5 months. There was no significant difference in intraoperative complications caused by different collateral protection methods. In the reference diameter of collateral vessels between the two groups, There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE events between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE events between the two groups. Conclusion: there is no significant difference in the prevention of intraoperative complications with different collateral protection techniques. The prognosis of double stent technique is not better than that of single stent technique in long term follow-up with TVRV TLR and other adverse clinical outcomes.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：R541.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 陳偉偉;高潤(rùn)霖;劉力生;朱曼璐;王文;王擁軍;吳兆蘇;李惠君;顧東風(fēng);楊躍進(jìn);鄭哲;蔣立新;胡盛壽;;《中國(guó)心血管病報(bào)告2015》概要[J];中國(guó)循環(huán)雜志;2016年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1698107