Schouten Olaf, van Kuijk Jan-Peter, Flu Willem-Jan, Winkel Tamara A, Welten Gijs M J M, Boersma Eric, Verhagen Hence J M, Bax Jeroen J, Poldermans Don
Department of Vascular Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Am J Cardiol. 2009 Apr 1;103(7):897-901. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.12.018. Epub 2009 Feb 7.
Prophylactic coronary revascularization in vascular surgery patients with extensive coronary artery disease was not associated with an improved immediate postoperative outcome. However, the potential long-term benefit was unknown. This study was performed to assess the long-term benefit of prophylactic coronary revascularization in these patients. Of 1,880 patients scheduled for major vascular surgery, 430 had > or =3 risk factors (age >70 years, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, diabetes mellitus, and renal failure). All underwent cardiac testing using dobutamine echocardiography or nuclear stress imaging. Patients with extensive stress-induced ischemia (> or =5 segments or > or =3 walls) were randomly assigned to additional revascularization. In total, 101 patients showed extensive ischemia and were assigned to revascularization (n = 49) or no revascularization (n = 52). After 2.8 years, the overall survival rate was 64% for patients randomly assigned to no preoperative coronary revascularization versus 61% for patients assigned to preoperative coronary revascularization (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 2.19, p = 0.61). Rates for survival free of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization were similar in both groups at 49% and 42% for patients allocated to medical treatment or coronary revascularization, respectively (HR 1.51, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.57, p = 0.13). Only 2 patients assigned to medical treatment required coronary revascularization during follow-up. Also, in patients who survived the first 30 days after surgery, there was no apparent benefit of revascularization on cardiac events (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.52, p = 0.36). In conclusion, preoperative coronary revascularization in high-risk patients undergoing major vascular surgery was not associated with improved postoperative or long-term outcome compared with the best medical treatment.
对于患有广泛冠状动脉疾病的血管外科手术患者,预防性冠状动脉血运重建与术后即刻结局改善并无关联。然而,其潜在的长期获益尚不清楚。本研究旨在评估这些患者预防性冠状动脉血运重建的长期获益。在计划进行大型血管手术的1880例患者中,430例有≥3个危险因素(年龄>70岁、心绞痛、心肌梗死、心力衰竭、中风、糖尿病和肾衰竭)。所有患者均接受了多巴酚丁胺超声心动图或核素负荷成像的心脏检查。有广泛应激性心肌缺血(≥5个节段或≥3个壁)的患者被随机分配接受额外的血运重建。共有101例患者表现出广泛缺血,并被分配接受血运重建(n = 49)或不接受血运重建(n = 52)。2.8年后,随机分配至术前未进行冠状动脉血运重建的患者总体生存率为64%,而分配至术前进行冠状动脉血运重建的患者为61%(风险比[HR] 1.18,95%置信区间[CI] 0.63至2.19,p = 0.61)。在分配接受药物治疗或冠状动脉血运重建的患者中,无全因死亡、非致命性心肌梗死和冠状动脉血运重建的生存率相似,分别为49%和42%(HR 1.51,95% CI 0.89至2.57,p = 0.13)。在随访期间,分配接受药物治疗的患者中只有2例需要进行冠状动脉血运重建。此外,在术后存活前30天的患者中,血运重建对心脏事件并无明显益处(HR 1.35,95% CI 0.72至2.52,p = 0.36)。总之,与最佳药物治疗相比,接受大型血管手术的高危患者术前进行冠状动脉血运重建与术后或长期结局改善并无关联。