Suppr超能文献

冠状动脉成形术与冠状动脉搭桥手术治疗无保护左主干冠状动脉狭窄的比较(博洛尼亚注册研究)

Comparison between coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (the Bologna Registry).

作者信息

Palmerini Tullio, Marzocchi Antonio, Marrozzini Cinzia, Ortolani Paolo, Saia Francesco, Savini Carlo, Bacchi-Reggiani Letizia, Gianstefani Silvia, Virzì Santo, Manara Francesca, Kiros Weldeab Meron, Marinelli Giuseppe, Di Bartolomeo Roberto, Branzi Angelo

机构信息

Istituto di Cardiologia, Policlinico S. Orsola, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 2006 Jul 1;98(1):54-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.01.070. Epub 2006 May 4.

Abstract

Although great interest exists in the relative efficacy of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, data comparing the 2 strategies are scant. Furthermore, no comparison has ever been performed between CABG and drug-eluting stents in this setting. From January 2002 to June 2005, 154 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis underwent CABG and 157 underwent PCI. Ninety-four patients received a drug-eluting stent in the left main artery. After a median follow-up of 430 days, the rate of mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization was 12.3%, 4.5%, and 2.6%, respectively, in the CABG group and 13.4%, 8.3%, and 25.5%, respectively, in the PCI group (death and myocardial infarction p = NS, target lesion revascularization p = 0.0001). Although patients treated with drug-eluting stents had a 25% relative risk reduction in the rate of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization compared with patients treated with bare stents, event-free survival was still better for patients treated with CABG. In the multivariate analysis, age >or=70 years, New York Heart Association classes III and IV, acute coronary syndromes, and peripheral vascular disease were the only independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, our results have indicated that at long-term follow-up no difference exists in the rate of mortality and myocardial infarction between PCI and CABG for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. However, the rate of target lesion revascularization was higher in the PCI group.

摘要

尽管对于冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)治疗无保护左主干冠状动脉狭窄的相对疗效存在极大兴趣,但比较这两种策略的数据却很少。此外,在这种情况下,从未对CABG和药物洗脱支架进行过比较。从2002年1月至2005年6月,154例无保护左主干冠状动脉狭窄患者接受了CABG,157例接受了PCI。94例患者在左主干置入了药物洗脱支架。中位随访430天后,CABG组的死亡率、急性心肌梗死率和靶病变血运重建率分别为12.3%、4.5%和2.6%,PCI组分别为13.4%、8.3%和25.5%(死亡和心肌梗死p=无显著性差异,靶病变血运重建p=0.0001)。尽管与接受裸支架治疗的患者相比,接受药物洗脱支架治疗的患者死亡、心肌梗死和靶病变血运重建率相对风险降低了25%,但CABG治疗的患者无事件生存率仍然更好。在多变量分析中,年龄≥70岁、纽约心脏协会III级和IV级、急性冠状动脉综合征和外周血管疾病是仅有的独立死亡预测因素。总之,我们的结果表明,在长期随访中,PCI和CABG治疗无保护左主干冠状动脉狭窄的死亡率和心肌梗死率没有差异。然而,PCI组的靶病变血运重建率更高。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验