北京大学学报(医学版) ›› 2016, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (1): 160-165. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2016.01.029

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

股腘动脉病变球囊扩张与支架植入的疗效对比研究

庄金满, 李选△, 李天润, 傅军, 栾景源, 王昌明   

  1. (北京大学第三医院介入血管外科,北京100191)
  • 出版日期:2016-02-18 发布日期:2016-02-18
  • 通讯作者: 李选 E-mail:xuanlivip@sina.com

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty versus stent implantation for treatment of femoral and popliteal artery lesion resulted from arteriosclerosis obliterans

ZHUANG Jin-man, LI Xuan△, LI Tian-run, FU Jun, LUAN Jing-yuan, WANG Chang-ming   

  1. (Department of Interventional Radiology and Vascular Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China)
  • Online:2016-02-18 Published:2016-02-18
  • Contact: LI Xuan E-mail:xuanlivip@sina.com

摘要:

目的:比较单纯经皮腔内血管成形术(percutaneous transluminal angioplasty,PTA)与PTA联合支架植入两种方法治疗股腘动脉病变的近、远期疗效。方法:回顾性分析2003年1月至12月北京大学第三医院收治的95例(107条患肢)股腘动脉病变患者的临床资料,根据患者接受的治疗方式,将其分为PTA组(单纯PTA,60条患肢)和支架组(PTA联合支架植入,47条患肢),采用门诊和电话问诊方式随访。结果:PTA组60 条患肢中22条为单纯股腘动脉病变,13条合并髂动脉病变,17条合并膝下动脉病变,8条合并髂动脉及膝下动脉病变;支架组47条患肢中18条为单纯股腘动脉病变,8条合并髂动脉病变,15条合并膝下动脉病变,6条合并髂动脉及膝下动脉病变。两组患者的年龄、性别构成、合并症、治疗前踝肱指数及Rutherford分级差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但PTA组中泛大西洋协作组(Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus,TASC)C/D级所占比例低于支架组(58.3% vs.76.6%,P=0.047)。PTA组和支架组随访时间分别48.0(5.0,108.0)个月和40.0(3.0,96.0)个月,差异无统计学意义(P=0.064)。支架组治疗费用及近期总有效率明显高于PTA组[(33 882.7±8 695.6)元vs.(17 754.8±3 654.2)元, P<0.001;93.6% vs.80.0%,P=0.044];近期显效率尽管略高于PTA组,但差异无统计学意义(31.9% vs.21.7%,P=0.231);近期有效率以及并发症发生率与PTA组相比差异无统计学意义(58.3% vs. 58.3%, P=0.724;1.7% vs.2.1%,P=1.000);两组均无近期恶化及围术期死亡病例。支架组远期显效率低于PTA组,恶化率高于PTA组,但差异均无统计学意义(8.5% vs. 15.0%,P=0.381;14.9% vs.5.0%,P=0.081);两组远期总有效率、累积保肢率及再手术率差异无统计学意义(66.0% vs. 66.7%,P=0.939;94.7% vs.94.1%,P=0.884;31.9% vs. 31.7%,P=1.000)。两组1~10年一期及二期累积通畅率差异无统计学意义(P=0.837,P=0.622)。进一步分组比较表明,支架组TASC A/B级和C/D级患者近期显效率、总有效率及远期恶化率均高于PTA组,但差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:对于动脉硬化闭塞症导致的股腘动脉病变,支架植入虽提高了近期疗效,但远期疗效和保肢率方面与单纯PTA无显著差异,且治疗费用增加。

关键词: 动脉硬化, 闭塞性, 股动脉, 腘动脉, 血管成形术, 支架

Abstract:

Objective: To study the clinical effects of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) versus stent implantation (ST) after PTA for the treatment of femoral and popliteal artery lesion resulted from arteriosclerosis obliterans. Methods: One hundred and three patients (119 limbs) treated for femoral and popliteal artery lesion resulted from arteriosclerosis obliterans for ten years were reviewed, of whom 60 limbs were treated by PTA and the other 47 by PTA combined with stent implantation.Results:Among the 60 limbs of the PTA group, there were 22 limbs involved only in femoral and popliteal artery; 13 limbs combined with iliac artery lesion; 17 limbs combined with infrapopliteal artery lesion; 8 limbs combined with iliac and infrapopliteal artery lesion. Among the 47 limbs of the ST group, there were 18 limbs involved only in femoral and popliteal artery; 8 limbs combined with iliac artery lesion; 15 limbs combined with infrapopliteal artery lesion; 6 limbs combined with iliac and infrapopliteal artery lesion. There was no significant difference between the two groups on age, sex, concomitant disease, ankle brachial index(ABI) before treatment and Rutherford classification (P>0.05). The patients’Trans-atlantic inter-society consensus (TASC) C/D was lower in the PTA group than that in the ST group (58.3% vs.76.6%, P=0.047).The follow-up periods were 48.0 (5.0,108.0) and 40.0 (3.0,96.0) months respectively (P=0.064).Compared with the PTA group, the ST group had a better short-term total effective rate (93.6% vs.80.0%, P=0.044) and a higher cost [(33 882.7±8 695.6) yuan vs. (17 754.8±3 654.2) yuan, P<0.001]. The short-term marked effective rate of the ST group was higher than that of the PTA group, but the difference was not significant (31.9% vs.21.7%, P=0.231). There was no significant difference between the two groups on short-term efficiency, and complication rates (58.3% vs. 58.3%, P=0.724; 1.7% vs.2.1%, P=1.000). There was no death during perioperative period and no short-term deterioration in both the groups. The long-term marked effective rate was lower and the deterioration rate was higher in the ST group than that in the PTA group, but the difference was not significant (8.5% vs. 15.0%, P=0.381; 14.9% vs. 5.0%, P=0.081).There was no significant difference between the two group on long term total effective rate,accumulative limb salvage rate and reoperation rate (66.0% vs. 66.7%, P=0.939; 94.7% vs. 94.1%, P=0.884; 31.9% vs. 31.7%, P=1.000), and the 1 to 10 years primary and secondary patency rates were similar (P=0.837, P=0.622).When compared based on TASC classification, TASC A/B patients in the ST group had a higher short-term marked effective rate, a higher short-term total effective rate and a higher long-term deterioration rate than those in the PTA group, but the difference was not significant (36.4% vs. 24.0%, P=0.353; 100.0% vs. 88.0%, P=0.322; 18.2% vs. 4.0%, P=0.216). TASC C/D patients had a similar result (30.6% vs. 20.0%, P=0.307; 91.7% vs. 74.3%, P=0.050; 13.9% vs. 5.7%, P=0.226). Both TASC A/B and TASC C/D patients in the ST group had a similar accumulative limb salvage rate with that in the PTA group (90.9% vs. 90.6%, P=0.920; 97.1% vs. 94.1%, P=0.796). Conclusion: Stent implantation can increase the cost and short term effective rate at the same time and is not superior to PTA on the long term effective rate and limb salvage rate for femoral and popliteal artery lesion resulted from arteriosclerosis obliterans.

Key words: Arteriosclerosis obliterans, Femoral artery, Popliteal artery, Angioplasty, Stents

中图分类号: 

  • R654.3
[1] 王明瑞, 王起, 胡浩, 赖金惠, 唐鑫伟, 万春艳, 许克新, 徐涛. 覆膜金属输尿管支架治疗盆腔脂肪增多症所致肾积水的疗效[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(5): 919-922.
[2] 杨文博,余磊,张维宇,徐涛,王强. 带线输尿管支架自排技术在肾移植受者中的效果及安全性[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(4): 656-660.
[3] 赖金惠,王起,姬家祥,王明瑞,唐鑫伟,许克新,徐涛,胡浩. 新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情期间延迟拔除输尿管支架对泌尿系结石术后患者生活质量和心理状态的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(5): 857-864.
[4] 庄金满,李天润,李选,栾景源,王昌明,冯琦琛,韩金涛. Rotarex旋切导管在股腘动脉狭窄合并血栓形成中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(2): 328-332.
[5] 韩金涛,张宇翔,贾子昌,姜除寒,刘恋,栾景源,梁飞,赵彦清. Neuroform Atlas支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞未破裂性颅内宽颈动脉瘤[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(1): 139-143.
[6] 李雨柯,王梅,唐琳,刘玉华,陈晓颖. 不同pH值对脱细胞小肠黏膜下层海绵支架螯合锶离子的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(1): 44-51.
[7] 潘佳忻,朱赛楠,李双玲,王东信. 副肿瘤性天疱疮合并实体肿瘤的危重症患者术后远期结局的影响因素[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(5): 981-990.
[8] 张春龙,王明瑞,王起,许克新,徐涛,胡浩. 覆膜金属输尿管支架维持性治疗输尿管镜碎石术后难治性输尿管狭窄的远期疗效评价[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(4): 674-679.
[9] 邓艺,张一,李博文,王梅,唐琳,刘玉华. 不同交联剂处理对脱细胞小肠黏膜下层多孔支架的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(3): 557-564.
[10] 朱正达,高岩,何汶秀,方鑫,刘洋,魏攀,闫志敏,华红. 红色诺卡氏菌细胞壁骨架治疗糜烂型口腔扁平苔藓的疗效及安全性[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(5): 964-969.
[11] 庄金满,李天润,李选,栾景源,王昌明,冯琦琛,韩金涛. Rotarex 旋切导管在下肢动脉硬化闭塞症支架内再狭窄中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(4): 740-743.
[12] 董文敏,王明瑞,胡浩,王起,许克新,徐涛. Allium覆膜金属输尿管支架长期留置治疗输尿管-回肠吻合口狭窄的初期临床经验及随访结果[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(4): 637-641.
[13] 钱亚龙,徐帅,刘海鹰. 椎间盘镜辅助脊髓刺激电极植入治愈下肢缺血1例[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(2): 378-381.
[14] 曹春玲,杨聪翀,屈小中,韩冰,王晓燕. 可注射羟乙基壳聚糖基水凝胶理化性能及其对人牙髓细胞增殖和成牙本质向分化的作用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(1): 10-17.
[15] 贾子昌,李选,郑梅,栾景源,王昌明,韩金涛. 复合手术治疗无残端的症状性长段颈内动脉慢性闭塞[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(1): 177-180.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!