我们的网站为什么显示成这样？

可能因为您的浏览器不支持样式，您可以更新您的浏览器到最新版本，以获取对此功能的支持，访问下面的网站，获取关于浏览器的信息：

|本期目录/Table of Contents|

Ⅱ型糖尿病与非糖尿病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗特征的对比分析

《心脏杂志》[ISSN:1009-7236/CN:61-1268/R]

期数:
2010年第5期
页码:
712-715
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2010-06-22

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparative study of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with or without Type II diabetes mellitus
作者:
寇双庆1; 李广平2; 丛洪良3
1.天津市东丽区东丽医院心内科，天津 300300；2.天津医科大学第二医院心内科，天津 300211；3.天津胸科医院心内科，天津300051
Author(s):
KOU Shuang-qing1;  LI Guang-ping2;  CONG Hong-liang3
1.Department of Cardiology, Dongli Hospital, Tianjin 300300, China; 2.Department of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300211, China; 3.Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Chest Hospital, Tianjin 300051, China
关键词:
糖尿病; 冠状动脉疾病; 冠状动脉介入治疗; 经皮
Keywords:
diabetes mellitus;  coronary disease;  coronary intervention;  percutaneous
分类号:
R541.4
DOI:
-
文献标识码:
A
摘要:
目的: 比较冠心病（CHD）并发与不并发糖尿病（DM）患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）操作特点，分析CHD并发DM患者冠状动脉病变特点，探讨临床上DM对PCI可能的影响。方法： 对2006年1月~2006年12月在天津市胸科医院依顺序进行的全部1 441例行PCI术并植入金属支架的患者进行回顾性分析，按是否伴有DM分为两组：DM组和非DM组。收集患者PCI治疗各项参数，包括病变类型、病变参数、植入支架参数等。应用SPSS10.0软件进行统计学检验，计数资料以 表示，P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果： 在1 441例行PCI的患者中，DM患者共计223人，占15.5%。 DM组C型病变比例明显高于非DM组（38.3% vs.19.7%；P<0.05）。DM组PCI治疗中治疗病变个数、植入支架个数明显多于非DM组（1.42±0.62 vs. 1.28±0.51;1.63±0.84 vs. 1.47±0.69，P<0.05），而植入支架直径DM组明显小于非DM组［（3.00±0.42）mm vs. ( 3.06±0.43)mm，P<0.05］。其余PCI操作技术特点差异无统计学意义。结论： CHD并发DM行PCI术者病变较非DM者更重；CHD并发DM患者进行PCI治疗时需要处理更多病变、植入更多支架，且支架直径较小；CHD并发DM患者接受PCI治疗的比例与非并发DM的CHD患者相比更低。
Abstract:
AIM: To compare the features of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between coronary heart disease (CHD) patients complicated with or without diabetes. METHODS: A cohort of 1 441 consecutive CHD patients treated with PCI from January to December 2006 in Tianjin Chest Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: CHD with diabetes mellitus group and CHD without diabetes mellitus group. PCI-related data were collected and compared between groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-three patients (15.5%) were found complicated with diabetes. Type C lesion was more prevalent in patients with diabetes than those without diabetes (38.3% vs. 19.7%; P<0.05). The number of treated lesions and implantation of stents and drug-eluting stents in diabetic group were higher than in the nondiabetic group (1.42±0.62 vs. 1.28±0.51; 1.63±0.84 vs. 1.47±0.69, P<0.05). The average stent diameter was smaller in the diabetic group compared with that in the nondiabetic group ［(3.00±0.42) mm vs.(3.06±0.43) mm, P<0.05］. CONCLUSION: Coronary artery lesions are more serious in CHD patients complicated with diabetes mellitus. Therefore, more lesions are treated and more stents are implanted in patients complicated with diabetes. PCI intervention rate is lower in CHD patients complicated with diabetes compared with that in CHD patients without diabetes.

参考文献/References

［1］钟学礼. 临床糖尿病学［M］. 上海： 上海科学出版社， 1995:222.

［2］Herlitz J, Malmberg K. How to improve the cardiac prognosis for diabetes［J］. Diabetes Care, 1999, 22(Suppl 2):89-96.

［3］陈灏珠. 实用内科学［M］. 北京： 人民卫生出版社， 1999; 841, 1227-1229.

［4］高润林. 经皮冠状动脉介入治疗指南［J］. 中华心血管病杂志, 2002, 30(12):707-718.

［5］Shen W, Zhang R, Shen Y, et al. Optimal timing for coronary in unstable angina patients［J］. Chin Med J, 2001, 114(1):59-61.

［6］ Mercado N, Serruys PW. A meta-analytical approach for the treatment of in-stent restenosis［J］. Eur Heart J, 2003, 24(3):217-218.

［7］Grundy SM, Benjamin IJ, Burke GL, et al. Diabetes and cardiovascular diseade: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association［J］. Circulation, 1999, 100(10):1134-1146.

[8]Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Trdatment of High Blood Cholesterol in-Adrlts. Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program(NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesteol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III)［J］. JAMA, 2001, 285(19):2486-2497.

[9]徐懿，李月华. 糖尿病合并冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病的发病及其相关特征［J］. 中国临床康复, 2006, 10(20):130-132.

[10]Fox KA, Poole-Wilson P, Clayton TC, et al. 5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-st-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA-3 randomised trial［J］. Lancet, 2005, 366(9489):914-920.

[11]Gershlick AH, Stephens-Loyed A, Hughes S, et al. Rescue angioplasty after failed thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction［J］. N Engl J Med, 2005, 353(26):2758-2768.

[12]Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomized multicenter study. Fragmin and fast revascularization during instability in coronary artery disease investigators［J］. Lancet, 1999, 354(9180):708-715.

[13]Moscucci M, Muller DWM. Restenosis［M］//Freed M, Grines C, Safian RD. The new manual of interventional cardiology. Birmingham: Physicians Press, 1997:427-428.

[14]Drachman DE, Edelman ER, Rogers C. Local delivery of antisense drugs［M］//Rabbani LE. Applications of antisense therapies to restenosis. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999:153-161.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期：2009-10-12.作者简介：寇双庆，主治医师，硕士Email：kshq2004@yahoo.com.cn
更新日期/Last Update: 2010-06-22