论文部分内容阅读
目的比较冠心病患者介入治疗应用进口和国产药物洗脱支架的成本/效果比。方法选择单纯植入药物洗脱支架的患者270例,根据植入支架的不同分为A[国产雷帕霉素洗脱支架(Partner),86例]、B[进口紫杉醇洗脱支架(Taxus),90例]和C[进口雷帕霉素衍生物佐他莫司洗脱支架(Endeavor),94例]三组。比较三组患者支架内再狭窄率;采用西雅图心绞痛量表对三组患者进行随访,对随访结果进行生存质量分析和成本-效果分析。结果 A、B、C三组支架内再狭窄率分别为3.5%(3/86)、5.6%(5/90)、1.1%(1/94)(P>0.05);A、B组术后心绞痛发作评分高于C组[(94.83±15.36)分、(96.49±9.95)分vs.(86.40±30.64)分(P<0.05)],其余维度无统计学差异;A组成本/效果比明显低于B、C组(P<0.05)。结论国产支架成本/效果比优于进口支架,两者有效性和安全性相似。
Objective To compare the cost / benefit ratio of imported and domestic drug-eluting stents in the interventional treatment of patients with coronary heart disease. Methods A total of 270 patients with drug-eluting stents were randomly divided into A [domestic rapamycin-eluting stent (86 cases)] and B [imported paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) , 90 cases] and C [Imported Rapamycin Derivative Zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor, 94 cases] three groups. The in-stent restenosis rate was compared between the three groups. The Seattle angina pectoris scale was used to evaluate the quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of the three groups. Results The in-stent restenosis rates in group A, B and C were 3.5% (3/86), 5.6% (5/90) and 1.1% (1/94), respectively (P> 0.05) The score of angina pectoris was higher than that of group C [(94.83 ± 15.36) points, (96.49 ± 9.95) points vs (86.40 ± 30.64) points (P <0.05)], with no significant difference in other dimensions Lower than B, C group (P <0.05). Conclusion The cost / effect ratio of domestic stent is better than that of imported stent, both of which have similar effectiveness and safety.