李萌玫,邵一兵,张纯全,刘玉昊,武越,王旭

• 1:青岛大学附属青岛市市立医院心内科

摘要(Abstract)：

目的比较2型糖尿病血糖控制不良与非2型糖尿病合并急性心肌梗死行择期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)术后冠状动脉微循环的差异和近期预后。方法根据患者病史及糖化血红蛋白情况将患者分为2型糖尿病组(24例)和非2型糖尿病组(32例),比较两组患者的基本临床资料、冠状动脉造影结果、冠状动脉(罪犯血管)的微循环阻力指数(IMR)和PCI术后即刻及术后3个月左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)、左心室射血分数(LVEF)的变化,比较两组PCI术后3个月主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生率,对糖尿病和LVEF恢复情况进行风险评估。结果 (1)两组患者一般资料及术前生化指标比较,差异均无统计学差异(均P>0.05)。2型糖尿病组患者血糖[(9.4±3.6)mmol/L比(6.1±2.5)mmol/L,P<0.010],糖化血红蛋白[(8.4±0.6)%比(5.7±0.9)%,P<0.010],微循环阻力指数[(29.12±7.45)比(22.74±6.87),P=0.011]显著高于非2型糖尿病组,差异均有统计学意义。(2)冠状动脉造影显示,两组患者冠状动脉病变部位,冠状动脉病变支数比较,差异均无统计学差异(均P>0.05)。(3)两组患者术后即刻LVEDD和LVEF比较,差异均无统计学差异(均P>0.05)。2型糖尿病组PCI术后3月LVEDD[(52.3±4.8)mm比(48.6±5.1)mm,P=0.019],LVEDD增加值[(4.1±6.3)mm比(0.8±4.4)mm,P=0.005]显著高于非2型糖尿病组,差异有统计学意义,但是LVEF[(48.6±7.3)%比(56.1±4.7)%,P=0.003],LVEF增加值[(–1.9±6.8)%比(4.3±5.4)%,P=0.007]显著低于非2型糖尿病组,差异均有统计学意义。(4)两组患者均未发生死亡病例。2型糖尿病组术后3月再发心肌梗死发生率[16.7%比3.1%,P=0.043],心肌梗死相关血管再次血运重建率[20.8%比6.3%,P=0.049],MACE发生率[37.5%比9.4%,P=0.018]均显著高于非2型糖尿病组,差异均有统计学意义。(5)对糖化血红蛋白与IMR进行Pearson相关性分析,糖化血红蛋白与IMR呈正相关(r=0.324,P=0.048)。糖化血红蛋白与PCI术后3月LVEDD呈正相关(r=0.324,P=0.036),与PCI术后3月LVEF呈负相关(r=–0.416,P=0.006),LVEDD增加值呈正相关(r=0.347,P=0.024),与LVEF增加值呈负相关(r=–0.422,P=0.005)。2型糖尿病是LVEF恢复不良的独立危险因素(OR=6.25)。结论 2型糖尿病血糖控制不良患者比较容易发生微循环功能受损并且PCI术后3个月心功能恢复不良,择期PCI术后近期预后不良。

关键词(KeyWords)： 糖尿病;微循环阻力指数;经皮冠状动脉介入治疗;预后;急性心肌梗死

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 李萌玫,邵一兵,张纯全,刘玉昊,武越,王旭

参考文献(References)：

• [1]Patel B,Fisher M.Therapeutic advances in myocardial microvascular resistance:unravelling the enigma.Pharmacol Ther,2010,127(2):131-147.
• [2]Chilian WM,Eastham CL,Marcus ML.Microvascular distribution of coronary vascular resistance in beating left ventricle.Am J Physiol,1986,251(4 Pt 2):H779-788.
• [3]Niccoli G,Burzotta F,Galiuto L,et al.Myocardial no-reflow in humans.J Am Coll Cardiol,2009,54(4):281-292.
• [4]Ragosta M,Camarano G,Kaul S,et al.Microvascular integrity indicates myocellular viability in patients with recent myocardial infarction.New insights using myocardial contrast echocardiography.Circulation,1994,89(6):2562-2569.
• [5]Vijayalakshmi K,De Belder MA.Angiographic and physiologic assessment of coronary flow and myocardial perfusion in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.Acute Card Care,2008,10(2):69-78.
• [6]Gibson CM,Cannon CP,Daley WL,et al.TIMI frame count:a quantitative method of assessing coronary artery flow.Circulation,1996,93(5):879-888.
• [7]Pijls NH,De Bruyne B,Smith L,et al.Coronary thermodilution to assess flow reserve:validation in humans.Circulation,2002,105(21):2482-2486.
• [8]Kern MJ.Coronary physiology revisited:practical insights from the cardiac catheterization laboratory.Circulation,2000,101(11):1344-1351.
• [9]Ng MK,Yeung AC,Fearon WF.Invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation:superior reproducibility and less hemodynamic dependence of index of microcirculatory resistance compared with coronary flow reserve.Circulation,2006,113(17):2054-2061.
• [10]吴志明,叶飞,尤威,等.微循环阻力指数对2型糖尿病患者冠状动脉微循环障碍的评价作用.中国临床医学,2014,21(4):400-402.
• [11]Nemes A,Forster T,Lengyel C,et al.Reduced aortic distensibility and coronary flow velocity reserve in diabetes mellitus patients with a negative coronary angiogram.Can J Cardiol,2007,23(6):445-450.
• [12]Shah AM,Hung CL,Shin SH,et al.Cardiac structure and function,remodeling,and clinical outcomes among patients with diabetes after myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction,heart failure,or both.Am Heart J,2011,162(4):685-691.
• [13]George A,Bhatia RT,Buchanan GL,et al.Impaired Glucose Tolerance or Newly Diagnosed Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosed during Admission Adversely Affects Prognosis after Myocardial Infarction:An Observational Study.PLo S One,2015,10(11):e0142045.
• [14]Leung M,Leung DY.Coronary microvascular function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Euro Intervention,2016,11(10):1111-1117.