Yirong Zhang, Yonglan Deng, Lianlian Zeng, Wei Zhou, Li Liu, Yifeng Tang, Yongjun Li, Lin Yang
{"title":"生物可吸收支架在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的非左主干分叉病变患者中的临床价值","authors":"Yirong Zhang, Yonglan Deng, Lianlian Zeng, Wei Zhou, Li Liu, Yifeng Tang, Yongjun Li, Lin Yang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the operation-related indexes, complication rates, and cardiac function indexes of bioresorbable scaffolds with drug-eluting scaffolds in coronary non-left main stem lesions and to clarify the clinical value of bioresorbable scaffolds in percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left main stem lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The retrospective study sample consisted of 60 non-left main stem lesions treated using bioresorbable stent or drug-eluting stents between June 2022 and June 2023. Comparison of surgical operation-related indexes, intraoperative and postoperative complications, cardiac function indexes, adverse cardiovascular events, and surgical success rate between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The surgical operation time and X-ray exposure time of the experimental group were shorter than those of the control group, and contrast agent dosage was lower than that of the control group (P < .05). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was higher than that in the control group at one month after surgery, and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < .05). The total incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was lower in the experimental group than in the control group (15.6% VS. 71.4%)(P < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bioresorbable scaffolds are more effective than drug-eluting scaffolds in treating non-left main stem lesions by percutaneous coronary intervention. Furthermore, bioresorbable scaffolds could be considered a preferable option for certain patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left main stem lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":7571,"journal":{"name":"Alternative therapies in health and medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Value of Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Patients with Non-left Main Bifurcation Lesions Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.\",\"authors\":\"Yirong Zhang, Yonglan Deng, Lianlian Zeng, Wei Zhou, Li Liu, Yifeng Tang, Yongjun Li, Lin Yang\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the operation-related indexes, complication rates, and cardiac function indexes of bioresorbable scaffolds with drug-eluting scaffolds in coronary non-left main stem lesions and to clarify the clinical value of bioresorbable scaffolds in percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left main stem lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The retrospective study sample consisted of 60 non-left main stem lesions treated using bioresorbable stent or drug-eluting stents between June 2022 and June 2023. Comparison of surgical operation-related indexes, intraoperative and postoperative complications, cardiac function indexes, adverse cardiovascular events, and surgical success rate between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The surgical operation time and X-ray exposure time of the experimental group were shorter than those of the control group, and contrast agent dosage was lower than that of the control group (P < .05). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was higher than that in the control group at one month after surgery, and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < .05). The total incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was lower in the experimental group than in the control group (15.6% VS. 71.4%)(P < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bioresorbable scaffolds are more effective than drug-eluting scaffolds in treating non-left main stem lesions by percutaneous coronary intervention. Furthermore, bioresorbable scaffolds could be considered a preferable option for certain patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left main stem lesions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7571,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alternative therapies in health and medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alternative therapies in health and medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternative therapies in health and medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical Value of Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Patients with Non-left Main Bifurcation Lesions Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Aim: To compare the operation-related indexes, complication rates, and cardiac function indexes of bioresorbable scaffolds with drug-eluting scaffolds in coronary non-left main stem lesions and to clarify the clinical value of bioresorbable scaffolds in percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left main stem lesions.
Methods: The retrospective study sample consisted of 60 non-left main stem lesions treated using bioresorbable stent or drug-eluting stents between June 2022 and June 2023. Comparison of surgical operation-related indexes, intraoperative and postoperative complications, cardiac function indexes, adverse cardiovascular events, and surgical success rate between the two groups.
Results: The surgical operation time and X-ray exposure time of the experimental group were shorter than those of the control group, and contrast agent dosage was lower than that of the control group (P < .05). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was higher than that in the control group at one month after surgery, and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < .05). The total incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was lower in the experimental group than in the control group (15.6% VS. 71.4%)(P < .05).
Conclusion: Bioresorbable scaffolds are more effective than drug-eluting scaffolds in treating non-left main stem lesions by percutaneous coronary intervention. Furthermore, bioresorbable scaffolds could be considered a preferable option for certain patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left main stem lesions.
期刊介绍：
Launched in 1995, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine has a mission to promote the art and science of integrative medicine and a responsibility to improve public health. We strive to maintain the highest standards of ethical medical journalism independent of special interests that is timely, accurate, and a pleasure to read. We publish original, peer-reviewed scientific articles that provide health care providers with continuing education to promote health, prevent illness, and treat disease. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine was the first journal in this field to be indexed in the National Library of Medicine. In 2006, 2007, and 2008, ATHM had the highest impact factor ranking of any independently published peer-reviewed CAM journal in the United States—meaning that its research articles were cited more frequently than any other journal’s in the field.
Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine does not endorse any particular system or method but promotes the evaluation and appropriate use of all effective therapeutic approaches. Each issue contains a variety of disciplined inquiry methods, from case reports to original scientific research to systematic reviews. The editors encourage the integration of evidence-based emerging therapies with conventional medical practices by licensed health care providers in a way that promotes a comprehensive approach to health care that is focused on wellness, prevention, and healing. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine hopes to inform all licensed health care practitioners about developments in fields other than their own and to foster an ongoing debate about the scientific, clinical, historical, legal, political, and cultural issues that affect all of health care.
分享
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
