Vestnik Rossiiskoi akademii meditsinskikh nauk · 2015
[Results of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Elderly Diabetic Patients].
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Оригинал на русском
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sigaev I Yu, Yarbekov R R, Chigogidze N A, Enokyan L G, Keren M A, Starostin M V
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare results of the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug elutingstent (DES) and bare metal stent (BMS) in older patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) type 2.
METHODS: Patients (> 65 years) with DM type 2 were divided into two groups: the 1st group--58 patients after PCI with DES, the 2nd group--62 patients after PCI with BMS. The average follow-up period was 32.6 ± 8.0 months. The end-points of the study were death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and restenosis of the target stenosis.
RESULTS: Endovascular treatment of patients older than 65 years with DM is highly effective and safe despite the complexity of coronary lesions. There are no significant differences in the rate of early (hospital) complications in two groups. Also, we did notfind differences in three-year mortality between the groups. But the incidence of myocardial infarction in the groups with DES and BMS was 9% and 18% respectively (p = 0.039). Major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction and restenosis of the target stenosis) frequency was also lower in the group with DES compared to BMS (36% and 61% respectively, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of patients older than 65 years with DM type 2 is a highly effective and safe method despite the complexity of coronary lesions. PCI with DES compared to BMS in older patients with DM is associated with improvement of medium-term results and decreases the number of cardiovascular events.
METHODS: Patients (> 65 years) with DM type 2 were divided into two groups: the 1st group--58 patients after PCI with DES, the 2nd group--62 patients after PCI with BMS. The average follow-up period was 32.6 ± 8.0 months. The end-points of the study were death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and restenosis of the target stenosis.
RESULTS: Endovascular treatment of patients older than 65 years with DM is highly effective and safe despite the complexity of coronary lesions. There are no significant differences in the rate of early (hospital) complications in two groups. Also, we did notfind differences in three-year mortality between the groups. But the incidence of myocardial infarction in the groups with DES and BMS was 9% and 18% respectively (p = 0.039). Major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction and restenosis of the target stenosis) frequency was also lower in the group with DES compared to BMS (36% and 61% respectively, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of patients older than 65 years with DM type 2 is a highly effective and safe method despite the complexity of coronary lesions. PCI with DES compared to BMS in older patients with DM is associated with improvement of medium-term results and decreases the number of cardiovascular events.