4.5 Article

Influence of a history of smoking on short term (six month) clinical and angiographic outcome after successful coronary angioplasty

期刊

HEART
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 299-306

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heart.84.3.299

关键词

coronary angioplasty; smoking; restenosis; quantitative angiography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives-To assess the influence of smoking on restenosis after coronary angioplasty. Design and patients-The incidence of smoking on restenosis was investigated in 2948 patients. They were prospectively enrolled in four major restenosis trials in which quantitative angiography was used before and immediately after successful angioplasty and again at six months. Results-Within the study population there were 530 current smokers, 1690 ex-smelters, and 728 non-smokers. Smokers were more likely to be men (85.9% v 87.5% v 65.3%, current v ex-v non-, p < 0.001), to be younger (54.0 (9.0) v 57.0 (9.1) a 59.9 (9.4) years, p < 0.001), to have peripheral vascular disease (7.2% v 5.5% v 2.3%, p < 0.001), and have sustained a previous myocardial infarction (42.9% v 43.9% v 37.9%, p = 0.022), but were less likely to be diabetic (9.1% a 9.5% v 12.6%, p = 0.043) or hypertensive (24.9% v 29.3% v 37.2, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the categorical restenosis rate (> 50% diameter stenosis) at six months (35.28% v 35.33% v 37.09%, current v ex- v non-), or the absolute loss (0.29 (0.54) v 0.33 (0.52) v 0.35 (0.55) mm, respectively; p = 0.172). Conclusions-Although smokers have a lower incidence of known predisposing risk factors for atherosclerosis, they require coronary intervention almost six years earlier than non-smokers and three years earlier than ex-smokers. Once they undergo successful coronary angioplasty, there appears to be no evidence that smoking influences their short term (six month) outcome, but because of the known long term effects of smoking, patients should still be encouraged to discontinue the habit.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据