目的 对比观察Firebird2TM药物洗脱支架和Excel药物洗脱支架治疗冠心病的长期疗效和安全性.方法 纳入97例植入药物洗脱支架的冠心病患者,Firebird2TM支架组(52例)和Excel支架组(45例),分别于2014年12月15日~2014年12月25日对患者进行随访,平均随访时间35.95±15.99月.结局变量包括主要不良心血管事件(MACE,全因死亡、致死性心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建)和次要终点事件(心功能分级).结果 入组患者的平均年龄69.16岁,男性比例59.78%,两组患者的基线情况、入院时诊断、植入支架的直径和长度、冠状动脉病变情况、术前实验室检查项目比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).随访后Firebird2 TM支架组患者致死性心肌梗死1例,靶血管血运重建1例,全因死亡3例;EXCEL支架组患者致死性心肌梗死5例,靶血管血运重建3例,全因死亡5例,MACE发生两组组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 Excel药物洗脱支架长期治疗效果不优于Firebird2TM药物洗脱支架.
Objective To observe comparatively the long-term curative effect of Firebird2TM drug eluting stent (DES) and Excel drug eluting stent (DES) in treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD).Methods CHD patients (n=97) were chosen and divided into Firebird2TM DES group (n=52) and Excel DES group (n=45). The patients were followed up from Dec. 15, 2014 to Dec. 25, 2014 (average follow-up month=35.95±15.99). The outcome variable included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, all-cause mortality, lethal myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) and secondary end-point events (NYHA).Results The average aged of chosen patients was 69.16 and percentage of male patients was 59.78%. The difference in baseline data, admission diagnosis, diameter and length of stent, coronary artery lesion and laboratory examinations before stenting had no statistical significance between 2 groups (P>0.05). After follow-up, there was 1 case with lethal myocardial infarction and 1 case with target vessel revascularization and there were 3 cases with all-cause mortality in Firebird2TM DES group, and there were 5 cases with lethal myocardial infarction, 3 cases with target vessel revascularization and 5 cases with all-cause mortality in Excel DES group. The difference in MACE incidence had no statistical significance between 2 groups (P>0.05).Conclusion The curative effect of Excel DES is not better than that of Firebird2TM DES in the long-term treatment of CHD.