Yan Bryan P, Clark David J, Buxton Brian, Ajani Andrew E, Smith Julian A, Duffy Stephen J, Shardey Gil C, Skillington Peter D, Farouque Omar, Yii Michael, Yap Cheng-Hon, Andrianopoulos Nick, Brennan Angela, Dinh Diem, Reid Christopher M
Cardiology Division, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Heart Lung Circ. 2009 Jun;18(3):184-90. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2008.10.005. Epub 2009 Mar 5.
Controversy continues over the optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Clinical characteristics, risk profile, and mortality of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are thought to differ but there are limited contemporary comparative data.
We compared clinical characteristics, in-hospital and 30-day mortality of 3841 consecutive patients undergoing isolated CABG and 4417 undergoing PCI. Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were determined by multiple logistic regression analysis.
CABG patients were older (p<0.01). The CABG group had a higher incidence of diabetes, heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction <45%, multi-vessel coronary artery, peripheral vascular and cerebro-vascular disease (all p<0.01). Patients undergoing PCI had a higher incidence of recent myocardial infarction (MI) as the indication for revascularisation (p<0.01). In-hospital and 30-day mortality was 1.8% and 1.7% in the CABG group, and 1.4% and 1.8% in the PCI group, respectively. Independent predictors of 30-day mortality after CABG were age (odds ratio 1.1 per year, 95% confidence interval 1.0-1.1), cardiogenic shock (4.10, 1.7-10.5) and previous CABG (6.6, 2.4-17.7). Predictors after PCI were diabetes (2.7, 1.4-5.1), female gender (3.0, 1.6-5.5), renal failure (3.2, 1.2-8.0), MI<24h (4.0, 2.2-7.6), left main intervention (5.4, 1.0-27.7), heart failure (6.0, 2.6-14.0) and cardiogenic shock (11.7, 5.4-25.2).
In contemporary clinical practice, CABG is preferred in patients with multi-vessel coronary and associated non-coronary vascular disease, while PCI is the dominant strategy for acute MI. Despite this, in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were similar. Predictors of early mortality after CABG differ to those of PCI.
多支冠状动脉疾病患者的最佳血运重建策略仍存在争议。冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)患者的临床特征、风险状况及死亡率被认为存在差异,但当代的比较数据有限。
我们比较了3841例连续接受单纯CABG患者和4417例接受PCI患者的临床特征、住院期间及30天死亡率。通过多因素逻辑回归分析确定30天死亡率的独立预测因素。
CABG患者年龄更大(p<0.01)。CABG组糖尿病、心力衰竭、左心室射血分数<45%、多支冠状动脉、外周血管及脑血管疾病的发生率更高(均p<0.01)。接受PCI的患者近期心肌梗死(MI)作为血运重建指征的发生率更高(p<0.01)。CABG组的住院期间及30天死亡率分别为1.8%和1.7%,PCI组分别为1.4%和1.8%。CABG术后30天死亡率的独立预测因素为年龄(比值比每年1.1,95%置信区间1.0 - 1.1)、心源性休克(4.10,1.7 - 10.5)及既往CABG史(6.6,2.4 - 17.7)。PCI术后的预测因素为糖尿病(2.7,1.4 - 5.1)、女性(3.0,1.6 - 5.5)、肾衰竭(3.2,1.2 - 8.0)、MI<24小时(4.0,2.2 - 7.6)、左主干干预(5.4,1.0 - 27.7)、心力衰竭(6.0,2.6 - 14.0)及心源性休克(11.7,5.4 - 25.2)。
在当代临床实践中,多支冠状动脉及相关非冠状动脉血管疾病患者首选CABG,而PCI是急性MI的主要治疗策略。尽管如此,住院期间及30天死亡率相似。CABG术后早期死亡率的预测因素与PCI不同。