Анализ причин повторного стенозирования коронарных артерий после плановых стентирований у пациентов со стабильной стенокардией напряжения - Журнал Терапевтический архив №1 Поликлинические проблемы и организация медицинской помощи 2021
Анализ причин повторного стенозирования коронарных артерий после плановых стентирований у пациентов со стабильной стенокардией напряжения
Филатова А.Ю., Осокина А.К., Потехина А.В. и др. Анализ причин повторного стенозирования коронарных артерий после плановых стентирований у пациентов со стабильной стенокардией напряжения. Терапевтический архив. 2021; 93 (1): 59–65. DOI: 10.26442/00403660.2021.01.200594
________________________________________________
Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения.
Чтобы посмотреть материал полностью
Авторизуйтесь
или зарегистрируйтесь.
Аннотация
Стентирование коронарных артерий в настоящее время является наиболее широко применяемым методом лечения стабильной стенокардии напряжения.
Цель. Определить частоту развития рестеноза и прогрессии коронарного атеросклероза, приведших к повторному выполнению коронароангиографии (КАГ), по данным регистра повторных обращений.
Материалы и методы. В исследование включены 3732 пациента (в том числе 2897 мужчин), перенесших стентирование коронарных артерий по поводу стабильной стенокардии I–III функционального класса в 2010–2014 гг. В течение последующих 4 лет повторно обратились 1487 (в том числе 1173 мужчины) пациентов. Причиной повторных обращений было рецидивирование стенокардии напряжения или другие проявления ишемии миокарда. Повторная КАГ выполнена у 699 пациентов.
Результаты. При повторной КАГ рестеноз стентированного сегмента выявлен в 84 (12% ангиографического контроля) случаях, прогрессирование коронарного атеросклероза – в 307 (44%), сочетание рестеноза и прогрессирования коронарного атеросклероза – в 63 (9%), отсутствие указанных осложнений – в 245 (35%) случаев. Прогрессирование атеросклероза явилось основной причиной, приведшей к необходимости повторной КАГ и повторной реваскуляризации миокарда (в 44 и 58% случаев соответственно); p<0,05. Исходная концентрация высокочувствительного С-реактивного белка ≥2 мг/л в крови являлась прогностическим фактором риска в отношении развития сочетанного поражения после выполненного стентирования: AUC 0,63 (95% доверительный интервал 0,52–0,73), р<0,05, отношение шансов 2,4 (1,1–5,1), р<0,05.
Заключение. Основной причиной повторных обращений и показанием к выполнению повторной реваскуляризации миокарда у пациентов с рецидивом стенокардии напряжения в течение 2 лет после коронарного стентирования является прогрессирование атеросклероза. Исходная концентрация высокочувствительного С-реактивного белка ≥2 мг/л обладает прогностической значимостью в отношении развития комбинированной конечной точки (рестеноз и прогрессирование коронарного атеросклероза).
Ключевые слова: коронарное стентирование, атеросклероз, воспаление, высокочувствительный С-реактивный белок, холестерин липопротеидов низкой плотности
Materials and methods. The procedure and clinical data of 3732 (2897 males) consecutive stable coronary artery disease patients undergoing coronary stenting, over five years between March 2010 and September 2014, were subject of this study. Over the next 4 years, 1487 (1173 males) patients were re-evaluated due to angina reoccurrence. 699 patients demonstrated the indications for coronary angiography.
Results. The restenosis of the previously stented segment was detected in 84 (12%) cases, the progression of coronary atherosclerosis – in 306 (44%), the combination of restenosis and atherosclerosis progression in 63 (9%), and the absence of these complications in 245 (35%) cases. The progression of coronary atherosclerosis was the leading indication for the repeat angiography and revascularization (44 and 58%, respectively); p<0.05. The basal level of hsCRP≥2 mg/l had a prognostic significance for the development of combined event (the restenosis and atherosclerosis progression): AUC 0.65 (0.50–0.75), OR 3.0 (1.1–7.9), p<0.05.
Conclusion. The progression of coronary atherosclerosis was the leading indication for the repeat angiography and repeat revascularization during 2 years after coronary stenting. The hsCRP level ≥2 mg/l at baseline had a prognostic significance for the development of restenosis in previously stented segment and coronary atherosclerosis progression.
Keywords: coronary stenting, atherosclerosis, inflammation, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, low-density lipoproteins
Цель. Определить частоту развития рестеноза и прогрессии коронарного атеросклероза, приведших к повторному выполнению коронароангиографии (КАГ), по данным регистра повторных обращений.
Материалы и методы. В исследование включены 3732 пациента (в том числе 2897 мужчин), перенесших стентирование коронарных артерий по поводу стабильной стенокардии I–III функционального класса в 2010–2014 гг. В течение последующих 4 лет повторно обратились 1487 (в том числе 1173 мужчины) пациентов. Причиной повторных обращений было рецидивирование стенокардии напряжения или другие проявления ишемии миокарда. Повторная КАГ выполнена у 699 пациентов.
Результаты. При повторной КАГ рестеноз стентированного сегмента выявлен в 84 (12% ангиографического контроля) случаях, прогрессирование коронарного атеросклероза – в 307 (44%), сочетание рестеноза и прогрессирования коронарного атеросклероза – в 63 (9%), отсутствие указанных осложнений – в 245 (35%) случаев. Прогрессирование атеросклероза явилось основной причиной, приведшей к необходимости повторной КАГ и повторной реваскуляризации миокарда (в 44 и 58% случаев соответственно); p<0,05. Исходная концентрация высокочувствительного С-реактивного белка ≥2 мг/л в крови являлась прогностическим фактором риска в отношении развития сочетанного поражения после выполненного стентирования: AUC 0,63 (95% доверительный интервал 0,52–0,73), р<0,05, отношение шансов 2,4 (1,1–5,1), р<0,05.
Заключение. Основной причиной повторных обращений и показанием к выполнению повторной реваскуляризации миокарда у пациентов с рецидивом стенокардии напряжения в течение 2 лет после коронарного стентирования является прогрессирование атеросклероза. Исходная концентрация высокочувствительного С-реактивного белка ≥2 мг/л обладает прогностической значимостью в отношении развития комбинированной конечной точки (рестеноз и прогрессирование коронарного атеросклероза).
Ключевые слова: коронарное стентирование, атеросклероз, воспаление, высокочувствительный С-реактивный белок, холестерин липопротеидов низкой плотности
________________________________________________
Materials and methods. The procedure and clinical data of 3732 (2897 males) consecutive stable coronary artery disease patients undergoing coronary stenting, over five years between March 2010 and September 2014, were subject of this study. Over the next 4 years, 1487 (1173 males) patients were re-evaluated due to angina reoccurrence. 699 patients demonstrated the indications for coronary angiography.
Results. The restenosis of the previously stented segment was detected in 84 (12%) cases, the progression of coronary atherosclerosis – in 306 (44%), the combination of restenosis and atherosclerosis progression in 63 (9%), and the absence of these complications in 245 (35%) cases. The progression of coronary atherosclerosis was the leading indication for the repeat angiography and revascularization (44 and 58%, respectively); p<0.05. The basal level of hsCRP≥2 mg/l had a prognostic significance for the development of combined event (the restenosis and atherosclerosis progression): AUC 0.65 (0.50–0.75), OR 3.0 (1.1–7.9), p<0.05.
Conclusion. The progression of coronary atherosclerosis was the leading indication for the repeat angiography and repeat revascularization during 2 years after coronary stenting. The hsCRP level ≥2 mg/l at baseline had a prognostic significance for the development of restenosis in previously stented segment and coronary atherosclerosis progression.
Keywords: coronary stenting, atherosclerosis, inflammation, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, low-density lipoproteins
Список литературы
1. Wijeysundera HC, Nallamothu BK, Krumholz HM, et al. Meta-analysis: effects of percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy on angina relief. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(6):370-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00007
2. Spertus MD. Ischemia trial update. Am Heart J. 2019;218:8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.09.001
3. Authors/Task Force Members; Catapano AL, Graham I, De Backer G, et al. ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias: the task force for the management of dyslipidemias of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and European atherosclerosis society (EAS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association for cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation. Atherosclerosis. 2016;253:281-344. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2016.08.018
4. Schomig A, Mehilli J, de Waha A, et al. A meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials of a percutaneous coronary intervention-based strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(11):894-904. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.051
5. Tanihata S, Nishigaki K, Kawasaki M, et al. Outcomes of patients with stable low-risk coronary artery disease receiving medical- and PCI-preceding therapies in Japan: J-SAP study 1-1. Circ J. 2006;70(4):365-9. doi: 10.1253/circj.70.365
6. Thomas S, Gokhale R, Boden WE, Devereaux PJ. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with medical therapy in stable angina pectoris. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(4):472-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2012.07.010
7. Bangalore S, Pursnani S, Kumar S, Bagos PG. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for prevention of spontaneous myocardial infarction in subjects with stable ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 2013;127(7):769-81. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.131961
8. Serruys PW, Ong AT, van Herwerden LA, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the arterial revascularization therapies study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(4):575-81. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2005.11.072
9. Cheng CI, Lee FY, Chang JP, et al. Long-term outcomes of intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: coronary stenting vs coronary artery bypass grafting. Circ J. 2009;73(4):705-12. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5273(08)70426-1
10. Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary interventionin patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomized, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):629-38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60141-5
11. Brener SJ, Lytle BW, Casserly IP, et al. Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation. 2004;109(19):2290-5. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2004.07.004
12. Radke PW, Friese K, Buhr A, et al. Comparison of coronary restenosis rates in matched patients with versus without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(9):1218-22. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.06.015
13. Iijima R, Ndrepepa G, Mehili J, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on long-term outcomes in the drug-eluting stent era. Am Heart J. 2007;154(4):688-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.005
14. Qin SY, Zhou Y, Jiang HX, et al. The association of diabetes mellitus with clinical outcomes after coronary stenting: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e72710. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072710
15. Ridker PM, Cushman M, Stampfer MJ, et al. Inflammation, aspirin, and the risk of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy men. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(14):973-9. doi: 10.1056/nejm199704033361401
16. Ridker PM, Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Rifai N. C-reactive protein and other markers of inflammation in the prediction of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(12):836-43. doi: 10.1056/nejm200003233421202
17. Sabatine MS, Morrow DA, Jablomski KA, et al. Prognostic significance of the centers for disease control/American heart association high-sensitivity C-reactive protein cut points for cardiovascular and other outcomes in patietnts with stable coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115(12):1528-36. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.106.649939
18. Ridker PM, MacFadyen JG, Everett BM, et al. Relationship of C-reactive protein reduction to cardiovascular event reduction following treatment with canakinumab: a secondary analysis from the CANTOS randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):319-28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32814-3
19. Montone RA, Niccoli G. Predictive value of C-reactive protein after drug-eluting stent implantation: an update view. Future Cardiol. 2018;14(5):355-8. doi: 10.2217/fca-2018-0038
20. Zhu X, Chen Y, Xiang L, et al. The long-term prognostic significance of high-sensitive C-reactive protein to in-stent restenosis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(27):e10679. doi: 0.1097/MD.0000000000010679
21. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 22 Investigators. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Eng J Med. 2004;350(15):1495-504. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2004.04.071
22. Pedersen TR, Faerqeman O, Kastelein JJ, et al. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled study. JAMA. 2005;294(19):2437-445. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.19.2437
2. Spertus MD. Ischemia trial update. Am Heart J. 2019;218:8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.09.001
3. Authors/Task Force Members; Catapano AL, Graham I, De Backer G, et al. ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias: the task force for the management of dyslipidemias of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and European atherosclerosis society (EAS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association for cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation. Atherosclerosis. 2016;253:281-344. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2016.08.018
4. Schomig A, Mehilli J, de Waha A, et al. A meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials of a percutaneous coronary intervention-based strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(11):894-904. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.051
5. Tanihata S, Nishigaki K, Kawasaki M, et al. Outcomes of patients with stable low-risk coronary artery disease receiving medical- and PCI-preceding therapies in Japan: J-SAP study 1-1. Circ J. 2006;70(4):365-9. doi: 10.1253/circj.70.365
6. Thomas S, Gokhale R, Boden WE, Devereaux PJ. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with medical therapy in stable angina pectoris. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(4):472-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2012.07.010
7. Bangalore S, Pursnani S, Kumar S, Bagos PG. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for prevention of spontaneous myocardial infarction in subjects with stable ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 2013;127(7):769-81. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.131961
8. Serruys PW, Ong AT, van Herwerden LA, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the arterial revascularization therapies study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(4):575-81. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2005.11.072
9. Cheng CI, Lee FY, Chang JP, et al. Long-term outcomes of intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: coronary stenting vs coronary artery bypass grafting. Circ J. 2009;73(4):705-12. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5273(08)70426-1
10. Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary interventionin patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomized, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):629-38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60141-5
11. Brener SJ, Lytle BW, Casserly IP, et al. Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation. 2004;109(19):2290-5. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2004.07.004
12. Radke PW, Friese K, Buhr A, et al. Comparison of coronary restenosis rates in matched patients with versus without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(9):1218-22. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.06.015
13. Iijima R, Ndrepepa G, Mehili J, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on long-term outcomes in the drug-eluting stent era. Am Heart J. 2007;154(4):688-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.005
14. Qin SY, Zhou Y, Jiang HX, et al. The association of diabetes mellitus with clinical outcomes after coronary stenting: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e72710. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072710
15. Ridker PM, Cushman M, Stampfer MJ, et al. Inflammation, aspirin, and the risk of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy men. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(14):973-9. doi: 10.1056/nejm199704033361401
16. Ridker PM, Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Rifai N. C-reactive protein and other markers of inflammation in the prediction of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(12):836-43. doi: 10.1056/nejm200003233421202
17. Sabatine MS, Morrow DA, Jablomski KA, et al. Prognostic significance of the centers for disease control/American heart association high-sensitivity C-reactive protein cut points for cardiovascular and other outcomes in patietnts with stable coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115(12):1528-36. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.106.649939
18. Ridker PM, MacFadyen JG, Everett BM, et al. Relationship of C-reactive protein reduction to cardiovascular event reduction following treatment with canakinumab: a secondary analysis from the CANTOS randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):319-28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32814-3
19. Montone RA, Niccoli G. Predictive value of C-reactive protein after drug-eluting stent implantation: an update view. Future Cardiol. 2018;14(5):355-8. doi: 10.2217/fca-2018-0038
20. Zhu X, Chen Y, Xiang L, et al. The long-term prognostic significance of high-sensitive C-reactive protein to in-stent restenosis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(27):e10679. doi: 0.1097/MD.0000000000010679
21. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 22 Investigators. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Eng J Med. 2004;350(15):1495-504. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2004.04.071
22. Pedersen TR, Faerqeman O, Kastelein JJ, et al. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled study. JAMA. 2005;294(19):2437-445. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.19.2437
2. Spertus MD. Ischemia trial update. Am Heart J. 2019;218:8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.09.001
3. Authors/Task Force Members; Catapano AL, Graham I, De Backer G, et al. ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias: the task force for the management of dyslipidemias of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and European atherosclerosis society (EAS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association for cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation. Atherosclerosis. 2016;253:281-344. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2016.08.018
4. Schomig A, Mehilli J, de Waha A, et al. A meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials of a percutaneous coronary intervention-based strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(11):894-904. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.051
5. Tanihata S, Nishigaki K, Kawasaki M, et al. Outcomes of patients with stable low-risk coronary artery disease receiving medical- and PCI-preceding therapies in Japan: J-SAP study 1-1. Circ J. 2006;70(4):365-9. doi: 10.1253/circj.70.365
6. Thomas S, Gokhale R, Boden WE, Devereaux PJ. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with medical therapy in stable angina pectoris. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(4):472-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2012.07.010
7. Bangalore S, Pursnani S, Kumar S, Bagos PG. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for prevention of spontaneous myocardial infarction in subjects with stable ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 2013;127(7):769-81. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.131961
8. Serruys PW, Ong AT, van Herwerden LA, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the arterial revascularization therapies study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(4):575-81. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2005.11.072
9. Cheng CI, Lee FY, Chang JP, et al. Long-term outcomes of intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: coronary stenting vs coronary artery bypass grafting. Circ J. 2009;73(4):705-12. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5273(08)70426-1
10. Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary interventionin patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomized, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):629-38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60141-5
11. Brener SJ, Lytle BW, Casserly IP, et al. Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation. 2004;109(19):2290-5. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2004.07.004
12. Radke PW, Friese K, Buhr A, et al. Comparison of coronary restenosis rates in matched patients with versus without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(9):1218-22. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.06.015
13. Iijima R, Ndrepepa G, Mehili J, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on long-term outcomes in the drug-eluting stent era. Am Heart J. 2007;154(4):688-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.005
14. Qin SY, Zhou Y, Jiang HX, et al. The association of diabetes mellitus with clinical outcomes after coronary stenting: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e72710. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072710
15. Ridker PM, Cushman M, Stampfer MJ, et al. Inflammation, aspirin, and the risk of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy men. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(14):973-9. doi: 10.1056/nejm199704033361401
16. Ridker PM, Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Rifai N. C-reactive protein and other markers of inflammation in the prediction of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(12):836-43. doi: 10.1056/nejm200003233421202
17. Sabatine MS, Morrow DA, Jablomski KA, et al. Prognostic significance of the centers for disease control/American heart association high-sensitivity C-reactive protein cut points for cardiovascular and other outcomes in patietnts with stable coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115(12):1528-36. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.106.649939
18. Ridker PM, MacFadyen JG, Everett BM, et al. Relationship of C-reactive protein reduction to cardiovascular event reduction following treatment with canakinumab: a secondary analysis from the CANTOS randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):319-28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32814-3
19. Montone RA, Niccoli G. Predictive value of C-reactive protein after drug-eluting stent implantation: an update view. Future Cardiol. 2018;14(5):355-8. doi: 10.2217/fca-2018-0038
20. Zhu X, Chen Y, Xiang L, et al. The long-term prognostic significance of high-sensitive C-reactive protein to in-stent restenosis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(27):e10679. doi: 0.1097/MD.0000000000010679
21. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 22 Investigators. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Eng J Med. 2004;350(15):1495-504. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2004.04.071
22. Pedersen TR, Faerqeman O, Kastelein JJ, et al. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled study. JAMA. 2005;294(19):2437-445. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.19.2437
________________________________________________
2. Spertus MD. Ischemia trial update. Am Heart J. 2019;218:8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.09.001
3. Authors/Task Force Members; Catapano AL, Graham I, De Backer G, et al. ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias: the task force for the management of dyslipidemias of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and European atherosclerosis society (EAS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association for cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation. Atherosclerosis. 2016;253:281-344. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2016.08.018
4. Schomig A, Mehilli J, de Waha A, et al. A meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials of a percutaneous coronary intervention-based strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(11):894-904. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.051
5. Tanihata S, Nishigaki K, Kawasaki M, et al. Outcomes of patients with stable low-risk coronary artery disease receiving medical- and PCI-preceding therapies in Japan: J-SAP study 1-1. Circ J. 2006;70(4):365-9. doi: 10.1253/circj.70.365
6. Thomas S, Gokhale R, Boden WE, Devereaux PJ. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with medical therapy in stable angina pectoris. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(4):472-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2012.07.010
7. Bangalore S, Pursnani S, Kumar S, Bagos PG. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for prevention of spontaneous myocardial infarction in subjects with stable ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 2013;127(7):769-81. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.131961
8. Serruys PW, Ong AT, van Herwerden LA, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the arterial revascularization therapies study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(4):575-81. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2005.11.072
9. Cheng CI, Lee FY, Chang JP, et al. Long-term outcomes of intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: coronary stenting vs coronary artery bypass grafting. Circ J. 2009;73(4):705-12. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5273(08)70426-1
10. Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary interventionin patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomized, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):629-38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60141-5
11. Brener SJ, Lytle BW, Casserly IP, et al. Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation. 2004;109(19):2290-5. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2004.07.004
12. Radke PW, Friese K, Buhr A, et al. Comparison of coronary restenosis rates in matched patients with versus without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(9):1218-22. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.06.015
13. Iijima R, Ndrepepa G, Mehili J, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on long-term outcomes in the drug-eluting stent era. Am Heart J. 2007;154(4):688-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.005
14. Qin SY, Zhou Y, Jiang HX, et al. The association of diabetes mellitus with clinical outcomes after coronary stenting: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e72710. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072710
15. Ridker PM, Cushman M, Stampfer MJ, et al. Inflammation, aspirin, and the risk of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy men. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(14):973-9. doi: 10.1056/nejm199704033361401
16. Ridker PM, Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Rifai N. C-reactive protein and other markers of inflammation in the prediction of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(12):836-43. doi: 10.1056/nejm200003233421202
17. Sabatine MS, Morrow DA, Jablomski KA, et al. Prognostic significance of the centers for disease control/American heart association high-sensitivity C-reactive protein cut points for cardiovascular and other outcomes in patietnts with stable coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115(12):1528-36. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.106.649939
18. Ridker PM, MacFadyen JG, Everett BM, et al. Relationship of C-reactive protein reduction to cardiovascular event reduction following treatment with canakinumab: a secondary analysis from the CANTOS randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):319-28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32814-3
19. Montone RA, Niccoli G. Predictive value of C-reactive protein after drug-eluting stent implantation: an update view. Future Cardiol. 2018;14(5):355-8. doi: 10.2217/fca-2018-0038
20. Zhu X, Chen Y, Xiang L, et al. The long-term prognostic significance of high-sensitive C-reactive protein to in-stent restenosis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(27):e10679. doi: 0.1097/MD.0000000000010679
21. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 22 Investigators. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Eng J Med. 2004;350(15):1495-504. doi: 10.1016/j.accreview.2004.04.071
22. Pedersen TR, Faerqeman O, Kastelein JJ, et al. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled study. JAMA. 2005;294(19):2437-445. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.19.2437
Авторы
А.Ю. Филатова1, А.К. Осокина1, А.В. Потехина1, И.В. Ромасов1, Т.И. Коткина1, А.М. Щинова1, Е.А. Ноева1, Т.И. Арефьева1, Е.А. Барабанова2, Е.В. Меркулов1, А.Н. Самко1, С.И. Проваторов1
1 ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр кардиологии» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия;
2 ФГАОУ ВО «Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова» Минздрава России (Сеченовский Университет), Москва, Россия
1 National Medical Research Center of Cardiology, Moscow, Russia;
2 Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
1 ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр кардиологии» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия;
2 ФГАОУ ВО «Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова» Минздрава России (Сеченовский Университет), Москва, Россия
________________________________________________
1 National Medical Research Center of Cardiology, Moscow, Russia;
2 Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
Цель портала OmniDoctor – предоставление профессиональной информации врачам, провизорам и фармацевтам.