特定适应症冠脉旋转动脉粥样硬化切除术的长期临床结果

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.15212/cvia.2023.0016
Cheng-fu Cao, Wei-li Teng, Yuliang Ma, Qi Li, Hong Zhao, Mingyu Lu, Jian Liu, Wei-min Wang
{"title":"特定适应症冠脉旋转动脉粥样硬化切除术的长期临床结果","authors":"Cheng-fu Cao, Wei-li Teng, Yuliang Ma, Qi Li, Hong Zhao, Mingyu Lu, Jian Liu, Wei-min Wang","doi":"10.15212/cvia.2023.0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study compared the long-term outcomes between rotational atherectomy (RA) for specific indications and on-label use of RA for severely calcified coronary lesions. Methods: Data for patients who underwent RA between 2015 and 2020 in a single-center registry were analyzed. The specific indication group included patients with ostial lesions, unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, chronic total occlusions, stent ablation, angulated lesions, and cardiac dysfunction, whereas patients with none of the above-mentioned characteristics were included in the on-label group. The primary endpoint was compared between groups. Results: A total of 176 patients in the on-label group and 125 patients in the specific indication group were included. Patient clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. The incidence of complications during the procedure was higher in the specific indication group than in the on-label group (20.0% vs. 10.8%, P=0.018). No significant difference was observed in in-hospital MACCE between groups (12.5% vs 9.7%, P=0.392). During 35 (10–57) months of follow-up, MACCE occurred in 46 patients (15.3%). The incidence of MACCE was much higher in the specific indication group than the on-label group (25.6% vs 13.6%, P=0.034). Conclusions: RA for specific indications, compared with on-label use, had a higher incidence of complications during the procedure and poorer long-term clinical outcomes.","PeriodicalId":41559,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Coronary Rotational Atherectomy for Specific Indications\",\"authors\":\"Cheng-fu Cao, Wei-li Teng, Yuliang Ma, Qi Li, Hong Zhao, Mingyu Lu, Jian Liu, Wei-min Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.15212/cvia.2023.0016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: This study compared the long-term outcomes between rotational atherectomy (RA) for specific indications and on-label use of RA for severely calcified coronary lesions. Methods: Data for patients who underwent RA between 2015 and 2020 in a single-center registry were analyzed. The specific indication group included patients with ostial lesions, unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, chronic total occlusions, stent ablation, angulated lesions, and cardiac dysfunction, whereas patients with none of the above-mentioned characteristics were included in the on-label group. The primary endpoint was compared between groups. Results: A total of 176 patients in the on-label group and 125 patients in the specific indication group were included. Patient clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. The incidence of complications during the procedure was higher in the specific indication group than in the on-label group (20.0% vs. 10.8%, P=0.018). No significant difference was observed in in-hospital MACCE between groups (12.5% vs 9.7%, P=0.392). During 35 (10–57) months of follow-up, MACCE occurred in 46 patients (15.3%). The incidence of MACCE was much higher in the specific indication group than the on-label group (25.6% vs 13.6%, P=0.034). Conclusions: RA for specific indications, compared with on-label use, had a higher incidence of complications during the procedure and poorer long-term clinical outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15212/cvia.2023.0016\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15212/cvia.2023.0016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究比较了特定适应症的旋转动脉粥样硬化切除术(RA)和标签上使用RA治疗严重钙化冠状动脉病变的长期结果。方法:对2015年至2020年单中心登记的RA患者数据进行分析。特殊适应症组包括有开口病变、无保护的左主干冠状动脉狭窄、慢性全闭塞、支架消融、成角病变和心功能不全的患者,而未标记组包括没有上述特征的患者。比较两组间的主要终点。结果:标签组176例,特殊适应症组125例。两组患者临床特征具有可比性。特定适应症组手术过程中并发症的发生率高于标签组(20.0%比10.8%,P=0.018)。两组住院MACCE比较差异无统计学意义(12.5% vs 9.7%, P=0.392)。在35(10-57)个月的随访中,46例(15.3%)患者发生MACCE。特定适应症组的MACCE发生率远高于标签组(25.6% vs 13.6%, P=0.034)。结论:与标签上使用的RA相比,用于特定适应症的RA在手术过程中有更高的并发症发生率和较差的长期临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Coronary Rotational Atherectomy for Specific Indications
Objective: This study compared the long-term outcomes between rotational atherectomy (RA) for specific indications and on-label use of RA for severely calcified coronary lesions. Methods: Data for patients who underwent RA between 2015 and 2020 in a single-center registry were analyzed. The specific indication group included patients with ostial lesions, unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, chronic total occlusions, stent ablation, angulated lesions, and cardiac dysfunction, whereas patients with none of the above-mentioned characteristics were included in the on-label group. The primary endpoint was compared between groups. Results: A total of 176 patients in the on-label group and 125 patients in the specific indication group were included. Patient clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. The incidence of complications during the procedure was higher in the specific indication group than in the on-label group (20.0% vs. 10.8%, P=0.018). No significant difference was observed in in-hospital MACCE between groups (12.5% vs 9.7%, P=0.392). During 35 (10–57) months of follow-up, MACCE occurred in 46 patients (15.3%). The incidence of MACCE was much higher in the specific indication group than the on-label group (25.6% vs 13.6%, P=0.034). Conclusions: RA for specific indications, compared with on-label use, had a higher incidence of complications during the procedure and poorer long-term clinical outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications
Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
222
期刊最新文献
Mechanisms of Sodium-glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in Heart Failure Incidence, Predictors and Associations Between In-Hospital Bleeding and Adverse Events in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Above 75 Years of Age – The Real-World Scenario Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Maps Immune Cell Heterogeneity in Mice with Allogeneic Cardiac Transplantation Coronavirus Disease 2019, Myocardial Injury, and Myocarditis Predictive Value of a Combination of the Age, Creatinine and Ejection Fraction (ACEF) Score and Fibrinogen Level in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1