Compare drug-eluting stent to bare-metal stent in prognosis on treating diffuse coronary lesions / 中华心血管病杂志

ABSTRACT

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>Compare drug-eluting stent (DES) to bare-metal stent (BMS) in prognosis on treating diffuse coronary lesions and analysis risk factor of treating complex and diffuse lesions in PCI.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>205 consecutive patients with complex and diffuse coronary lesions enrolled our hospital, who were treated with more than 25 mm long DES or BMS. We exclude unsuccessful operation and location. All patients received medical treatment by guideline, and aspirin 300 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg once daily were continued at 6 months after the procedure. The patients were followed up after 6 months.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The study population were consisted of 205 patients that there were 181 man, and 24 women, who got 382 stents for 227 target lesions in coronary. There were 93.8% C and 6.2% B2 ACC/AHA type lesion. There were 86.8% patients with binary or above vessel treated. The average reference vessel diameter was 2.88 +/- 0.43 mm. The average stent length of per lesion was 40.09 +/- 12.94 mm. There were 54.2% lesions treated with overlapping stent. There were not different between DES and BMS in patients baseline characteristics, but RVD of group DES less than of group BMS (2.80 +/- 0.37 mm, 3.10 +/- 0.48 mm, P = 0.005) in lesion baseline characteristics. After 6 months, restenosis rate in group DES was less than in group BMS (15.4%, 48.4%, P < 0.001). There were obvious superiority TVR of DES than of BMS (11.6%, 38.5%, P < 0.001). The rate of local restenosis in group of DES was higher than that in group of BMS (33.3%, 18.2%, P = 0.029). We analyzed the risk factors for diffuse lesion by a logistic regression model, the significant univariate clinical and angiographic predictors of restenosis were treating with overlapping stent (OR = 2.82, P = 0.017) and drug-eluting stent (OR = 5.71, P < 0.001).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>We find that implantation of DES in patients with diffuse lesions in coronary is relatively more safe and associated with more good clinical outcomes, than of BMS.</p>