冠狀動脈旁路移植術與藥物洗脫支架治療無保護左主干冠心病療效比較

周保國 王兆東 王靜 王麗君 呂洪福 李珂

（1.青島阜外心血管病醫院心臟外科，山東青島 266034；2.山東青島思達心臟醫院心臟外科，山東青島 266000）

冠狀動脈旁路移植術與藥物洗脫支架治療無保護左主干冠心病療效比較

周保國1王兆東2王靜1王麗君1呂洪福1李珂1

（1.青島阜外心血管病醫院心臟外科，山東青島 266034；2.山東青島思達心臟醫院心臟外科，山東青島 266000）

目的：探討無保護左主干病變患者選用冠狀動脈旁路移植術與藥物洗脫支架治療的療效。方法：選擇100例在我院行血運重建術的無保護左主干患者，根據患者選擇的手術方式不同隨機分為兩組：A組（藥物洗脫支架組，n=48例）、B組（冠狀動脈旁路移植術組，n=52例）。統計兩組患者一般情況、心功能指標、冠狀動脈病變特點、住院期間療效及術后3年不良心腦血管事件的發生率。結果：兩組患者左主干病變的主要位置位于開口部和體部，A組患者左主干+多支血管病變的發生率及Syntax積分明顯低于B組，差異有統計學意義；A組患者術后平均住院天數明顯低于B組患者，差異有統計學意義，血運完全重建人數低于B組患者，差異有統計學意義，兩組患者住院期間總死亡人數相比差異無統計學意義；術后3年兩組患者心腦血管事件總人數、總死亡人數、腦卒中、非致死性心肌梗死的發生情況相比差異無統計學意義，A組患者靶血管再次血運重建的發生率明顯高于B組患者，差異有統計學意義。結論：無保護左主干病變患者采用藥物洗脫支架治療方法可減少患者圍術期的住院時間且不增加患者心腦血管事件的發生及死亡率，但與冠狀動脈旁路移植術相比會增加患者遠期靶血管再次血運重建。

冠心病；無保護左主干；藥物洗脫支架；冠狀動脈旁路移植術

心臟左主干主要供應左心室的血液[1-2]，因而左主干病變患者是冠狀動脈粥樣硬化性心臟病中的高危人群。無保護的左主干病變患者由于缺少側支循環，死亡風險更高[3-4]，一旦血流改變可能立刻引起患者心源性休克甚至死亡[5]。冠狀動脈旁路移植術是治療無保護左主干病變的主要方法，可以明顯改善患者的生存率[6-7]。隨著冠狀動脈介入手術的成熟和藥物洗脫支架的研發，藥物洗脫支架植入成為左主干病變血運重建的新方法[8]。因而本研究將探討無保護左主干病變患者選用冠狀動脈旁路移植術與藥物洗脫支架治療的近遠期療效。

1 資料與方法

1.1 一般資料

選擇于我院行血運重建術的無保護左主干患者100例，排除急性心肌梗死、其它原因所致左主干病變者，再次血運重建患者、既往有冠狀動脈旁路移植術手術史、術后不能長期耐受抗血小板藥物治療等患者。所有患者術前均行冠狀動脈造影確診為左主干病變（狹窄程度≥50%且左前降支或回旋支無側支循環及血管橋），隨機并根據患者意愿選擇手術方式。兩組分別為：A組（藥物洗脫支架組，n=48例）、B組（冠狀動脈旁路移植術組，n=52例）。本研究經我院倫理委員會批準且所有患者均簽署知情同意書。

1.2 方法

A組患者術前一周開始采用阿司匹林腸溶片300mg/天、氯吡格雷75mg/天口服，術中根據患者情況選擇橈動脈或股動脈穿刺行藥物洗脫支架置入術，對于左主干遠端分叉無病變的患者采用單支架置入術，合并遠端分叉病變的患者采用雙支架置入術，術后阿司匹林腸溶片改為100mg/天長期服用，氯吡格雷75mg/天服用一年。B組患者術前一周停用阿司匹林腸溶片、氯吡格雷等藥物，改為低分子肝素40～60mg/次，2次/天，皮下注射，術中據情況采用體外循環或非體外循環下冠狀動脈旁路移植術，術后長期口服阿司匹林腸溶片100mg/天。兩組患者術后據情況加用調脂（阿托伐他汀鈣片或瑞舒伐他汀鈣）、改善循環（硝酸酯類）、降壓藥物。

1.3 觀察指標

統計兩組患者一般情況、心功能指標、冠狀動脈病變特點、住院期間療效及術后3年不良心腦血管事件（總死亡人數、腦卒中、非致死性心肌梗死、靶血管再次血運重建）的發生率。Syntax評分指標具體如下：syntax評分系統將冠狀動脈分為16段，對直徑≥1.5mm，狹窄程度≥50%的冠脈血管進行評分主要包括冠狀動脈優勢分布類型、病變血管數目、病變節段及特征等，所得的總分即為Syntax總分。采用SPSS19.0統計學軟件進行統計學分析，P＜0.05為差異有統計學意義。

2 結果

兩組患者年齡、性別比、高血壓病史、糖尿病病史、高脂血癥病史、吸煙史、心功能指標相比差異無統計學意義。

患者左主干病變的主要位置位于開口部和體部，A組患者左主干+多支血管病變的發生率及Syntax積分明顯低于B組，差異有統計學意義，見表1。

表1 兩組患者冠狀動脈病變特點比較

A組患者術后平均住院天數（4.5±1.9）天，明顯低于B組的（15.8±6.7）天，差異有統計學意義，P＜0.05，兩組血運完全重建人數38vs49，死亡人數0vs3，A組完全重建人數低于B組，差異有統計學意義，P＜0.05；死亡率比較差異無統計學意義。

術后隨訪3年不良心腦血管事件的發生情況，兩組心腦血管事件總人數相比差異無統計學意義，其中總死亡人數、腦卒中、非致死性心肌梗死的發生情況相比差異無統計學意義，P＞0.05，A組患者靶血管再次血運重建的發生率18.75%明顯高于B組患者的3.85%，差異有統計學意義，P＜0.05。

3 討論

左冠狀動脈是供應左心血供的主要動脈，病變率約為5%，患者極易出現心律失常、心肌梗死、心源性休克等危及生命的并發癥，早期診斷治療無保護左主干病變可以明顯改善患者預后[9-11]。有研究表明冠狀動脈旁路移植術可明顯改善無保護左主干患者的生存率[12]，且患者無主要心血管事件生存率明顯高于冠狀動脈支架置入術，因而冠脈旁路移植術是無保護左主干患者首選治療方案。但冠狀動脈粥樣硬化的患者多為中老年患者，且多合并糖尿病、心功能不全、外周血管疾病等，外科手術創傷及術后并發癥也成為患者中遠期生存率的影響因素[13-14]。也有研究表明無保護左主干患者采用介入手術治療也可獲得較高的生存率[15]，但合并多血管病變的PCI手術難度較大，因而對于左主干多血管病變的處理策略選擇更應慎重。

本研究中， A組患者多為左主干+單支血管病變，因而其Syntax評分低于B組。A組患者術后平均住院天數明顯低于B組患者，差異有統計學意義，表明藥物洗脫支架置入術創傷小，術后患者恢復快。兩組患者住院期間總死亡人數相比差異無統計學意義，表明藥物洗脫支架置入術安全性高，并不增加患者圍術期的死亡率。A組患者血運完全重建人數低于B組患者，這可能和術中操作有關，由于藥物洗脫支架置入術要求冠脈造影清楚顯示病變血管、支架能夠盡可能伸展、貼合覆蓋病變血管，但術中支架置入和釋放均在透視下進行，因而可能存在操作上的誤差[16]。術后3年隨訪結果表明術后血管再狹窄是影響藥物洗脫支架療效的重要因素，其可能的機制和血管重塑、血管彈性回縮、血管內血栓及新生內膜增生形成有關，同時糖尿病、高脂血癥、急性心肌梗死等也可導致介入手術數周后支架內再狹窄。再次血運重建的血管不僅包括既往的病變血管也包括新狹窄的病變血管，因而病變的新進展和新發病變是限制藥物洗脫支架治療遠期效果的重要原因，控制冠狀動脈粥樣硬化的危險因素，調整患者的血糖、血壓、血脂可能有效降低遠期血管再次血運重建的發生率[17-18]。以上研究結果可以看出藥物洗脫支架治療具有創傷小、患者住院時間短、術后恢復快等優點，降低其再狹窄率可顯著提高其遠期療效。冠狀動脈旁路移植術雖然完全血運重建率高，但創傷大、患者圍術期并發癥、死亡率高。因而對于無保護左主干病變患者的手術方式應具體化、個體化。

[1] QARAWANI D, MENACHEM N, GANEM D, et al. Unprotected left main stenting, short and long-term outcomes[J]. Acute Care Care, 2010,12(4):124-129.

[2] SANJAY P, YOUNG HK, SHERIDAN M. Drug-eluting versus baremetal stents in unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis[J]. JACC, 2010,3(6):602-611.

[3] ALDEA GS, MOKADAM NA, MELFORD R, et al. Changing volumes, risk profiles, and outcomes of coronary interventions[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2009,87(6):1828-1838.

[4] ZHENG S, ZHENG Z, HOU J, et al. Comparison between drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting unprotected left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of two randomized trials and thirteen boservational studies[J]. Cardiology, 2011,118(8):22-32.

[5] PARK DW, KIM YH, YUN SC, et al. Long-term outcomes after stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease:10-year results of bare-metal stents and 5-year results of drug-eluting stents from the ASANMAIN Registry[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010,56(5):1366-1357.

[6] BIRIM O, GAMERON M, BOGERS AJ, et al. Complexity of coronary vasculature predicts outcome of surgery for left main disease[J]. Am Thorac Surg, 2009,87(7):1097-1104.

[7] SERRUYS PW, MORICE MC, KAPPETEIN AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease[J].N Engl J Med, 2009,360(12):961-972.

[8] LEMESLE G, BONENOL L, LABRONE A, et al. Prognostic value of the SYNTAX score in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting for three-vessel coronary artery disease[J]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2009,73(9):612-617.

[9] DAWKINS KD, MOREL MA, SERRUYS PW. Counting the score: the SYNTAX score and coronary risk[K]. Euro Intervention, 2009,5(2):33-35.

[10] PALMERINI T, BARLOCCO F, SANTARELLI A, et al. A comparision between coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and drug eluting stent for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in elderly patients(aged＞or=75years). Eur Heart J, 2007,28(5):2714-2719.

[11] LEE SW, KIM SH, KIM SO, et al. Comparative long-term efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting in ostial left main coronary artery disease: analysis of the main compare registry[J].Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2012, 80(2):206-212.

[12] MORICE M, SERRUYS PW, KAPPETEIN P, et al. Outcomes in patients with de novo left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using paclitaxel-eluting stents or coronary intervention with TAXUS and cardiac surgery trial[J]. Circulation, 2010,121(24):2645-2653.

[13] BRENNAN JM, DAI D, PATEL MR, et al. Characteristics and long-term outcomes of percutaneous revascularization of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis in the United States: a report from the national cardiovascular data registry, 2004 to 2008[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2012,59(7):648-454.

[14] JIANG WB, ZHAO W, HUANG H, et al. Meta-analysis of effectiveness of first-generation drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary disease[J].Am J Cardil, 2012,110(12):1764-1772.

[15] WANG QS, TAN Q, LIU DT, et al. Clinical outcomes of trasradial unprotected left main coronary artery stenting in the elderly[J]. Saudi Med J, 2014,35(8):580-584.

[16] PARK DW, KIM YH, YUN SC, et al. Complexity of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease and long-term outcomes in patients with unprotected left main disease treated with drug eluting stents or coronary artery bypass grafting[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2011,57(21):2152-2159.

[17] CHIEFFO A, MELIGA E, LATIB A, et al. Drug-eluting stent for left main coronary artery disease. The DELTA registry:a multicenter registry evaluating percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main treatment[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2012,5(7):718-727.

[18] MIN SY, PARK DW, YUN SC, et al. Major predictors of longterm clinical outcomes after coronary revascularization in patients with unprotected left main coronary disease: analysis from the MAIN COMPARE study[J]. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2010,3(2):127-133.

The effect comparison between coronary artery bypass grafting and drug eluting stent on the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease

ZHOU Baoguo1, WANG Zhaodong2, WANG Jing1, WANG Lijun1, LYU Hongfu1, LI Ke1.
（1. Department of Cardiac surgery,Qingdao Fuwai Cardiovascular Disease Hospital,Qingdao 266034 china；2. Department of Cardiac surgery,Qingdao starr heart hospital,Qingdao 266000,china）

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the effect of coronary artery bypass grafting and drug eluting stent on the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Methods: A total of 100 cases of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease applying revascularization treated in our hospital were randomly divided into group A ( drug eluting stent, n=48) and group B (coronary artery bypass grafting, n=52). The general conditions, cardiac parameters, coronary artery lesion characteristics, curative effect during hospitalization and the incidence of adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events after 3 years of surgery were recorded. Results: The main sites of left main coronary artery disease of two groups were found in ostial and body. The incidence of left main coronary artery plus multi-vessel disease and Syntax score were remarkable lower than that of B group and the difference was statistically signif i cant; the average length of stay of A group was shorter than B group while the number of revascularization of group A was less than group B and the difference was statistically signif i cant. The difference of total death toll during hospitalization between two groups was not statistically signif i cant; the difference of the total number of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, total death toll, stroke and the incidence of non-lethal myocardial infarction between two groups after 3 years of treatment was of no statistical signif i cance. The incidence of target vessel revascularization of group A was higher than group B and the difference was statistically significant. Conclusions: The therapy of drug eluting stent on unprotected left main coronary artery disease can decrease the perioperative hospitalization time without adding the morality rate of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, however, it will increase the target vessel revascularization comparing with the coronary artery bypass grafting.

coronary heart disease; unprotected left main coronary artery; drug eluting stent; coronary artery bypass grafting

R654.3

A

2095-5200(2017)04-028-03

10.11876/mimt201704013

周保國，本科，主治醫師，研究方向：心外疾病臨床，Email：guobaozhou231@163.com。