论文部分内容阅读
目的评估可获得最佳投照角度的临床价值,用三维定量分析的方法评估可获得分叉最佳投照角度和临床分叉介入角度的差异性。方法该回顾性研究共纳入76例患者85个分叉病变,其中53例接受了介入治疗。采用新型经验证的三维定量分析软件计算可获得分叉最佳投照角度,计算可获得分叉最佳投照角度和介入角度靶血管主支、边支短缩率,2位经验丰富的心脏介入医生以实际介入角度为参照对可获得投照角度的优越性予以评价,评价结果量化为-2~2共5个等级,同时对最常见的分叉病变的可获得最佳投照角度和介入角度的分布特征给予分析。结果可获得分叉最佳投照角度与介入分叉角度相比,无论主支还是边支均有更少的短缩率[分别为(4.84±3.08)%比(12.55±7.00)%,(5.80±3.10)%比(12.59±7.04)%,均P<0.001]。可获得分叉病变最佳投照角度优于实际介入投照角度。可获得分叉最佳投照角度相对分散,而实际分叉介入角度相对集中,47.2%可获得分叉最佳投照角度不同于解剖意义分叉最佳投照角度。结论可获得分叉最佳投照角度主支、边支短缩率均小于实际介入角度,约一半的可获得分叉最佳投照角度不同于解剖意义上最佳投照角度,当解剖意义上最佳投照角度无法达到时,可获得最佳投照角度可作为第2最佳选择。
Objective To evaluate the clinical value of obtaining the optimal projection angle and to evaluate the difference between the optimum projection angle of the forked bifurcation and the angle of clinical bifurcation intervention by means of three-dimensional quantitative analysis. METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 85 bifurcation lesions in 76 patients, 53 of whom received interventional therapy. A new validated 3D quantitative analysis software was used to calculate the optimal bifurcation angle, and the best bifurcation angle and interventional target vessel main branch, branch and branch shortening rate, two experienced heart Interventional physicians from the actual intervention point of view as the reference to obtain the perspective of superiority to be evaluated, the evaluation results quantified -2 -2 a total of five levels, while the most common bifurcation lesions can be obtained the best perspective and Analysis of the distribution characteristics of interventional angle. Results The best bifurcation angle was obtained. Compared with the interventional bifurcation angle, there were fewer shortening rates [(4.84 ± 3.08)% vs (12.55 ± 7.00)%, 5.80 ± 3.10)% (12.59 ± 7.04)%, all P <0.001]. Bifurcation lesions can get the best projection angle is better than the actual intervention vote. The optimal projection angle for the forked bifurcation is relatively decentralized, while the actual bifurcation angle is relatively concentrated, and the optimal bifurcation angle for 47.2% is different from the best for bifurcation for anatomical significance. CONCLUSION: The main branch with the best angle for bifurcation and the short branch with a branch are smaller than the actual point of intervention. About half of the optimal bifurcation angles are different from the best one in terms of anatomy On the best projection perspective can not be achieved, the best projection angle can be used as the second best choice.