Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7065, USA.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2010 Jun;89(6):1889-94; discussion 1894-5. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.03.003.
Comparative effectiveness of interventional treatment strategies for the very elderly with acute coronary syndrome remains poorly defined due to study exclusions. Interventions include percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), usually with stents, or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The elderly are frequently directed to PCI because of provider perceptions that PCI is at therapeutic equipoise with CABG and that CABG incurs increased risk. We evaluated long-term outcomes of CABG versus PCI in a cohort of very elderly Medicare beneficiaries presenting with acute coronary syndrome.
Using Medicare claims data, we analyzed outcomes of multivessel PCI or CABG treatment for a cohort of 10,141 beneficiaries age 85 and older diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome in 2003 and 2004. The cohort was followed for survival and composite outcomes (death, repeat revascularization, stroke, acute myocardial infarction) for three years. Logistic regressions controlled for patient demographics and comorbidities with propensity score adjustment for procedure selection.
Percutaneous coronary intervention showed early benefits of lesser morbidity and mortality, but CABG outcomes improved relative to PCI outcomes by three years (p < 0.01). At 36 months post-initial revascularization, 66.0% of CABG recipients survived (versus 62.7% of PCI recipients, p < 0.05) and 46.1% of CABG recipients were free from composite outcome (versus 38.7% of PCI recipients, p < 0.01).
In very elderly patients with ACS and multivessel CAD, CABG appears to offer an advantage over PCI of survival and freedom from composite endpoint at three years. Optimizing the benefit of CABG in very elderly patients requires absence of significant congestive heart failure, lung disease, and peripheral vascular disease.
由于研究排除了非常高龄的急性冠脉综合征患者,介入治疗策略的比较效果仍不清楚。干预措施包括经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),通常使用支架,或冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)。由于提供者认为 PCI 与 CABG 具有治疗等效性,并且 CABG 会增加风险,因此经常将老年人引导至 PCI。我们评估了在一组非常高龄的 Medicare 受益人中,急性冠脉综合征患者接受 CABG 与 PCI 的长期结果。
使用 Medicare 索赔数据,我们分析了 2003 年和 2004 年诊断为急性冠脉综合征的 10141 名 85 岁及以上受益人的多支血管 PCI 或 CABG 治疗结果。该队列在三年内随访生存和复合结局(死亡、再次血运重建、卒中和急性心肌梗死)。逻辑回归控制了患者的人口统计学和合并症,并通过倾向评分调整了手术选择。
PCI 具有早期较低的发病率和死亡率的优势,但 CABG 的结果在三年内优于 PCI(p < 0.01)。在初始血运重建后 36 个月,CABG 组的 66.0%的患者存活(而 PCI 组为 62.7%,p < 0.05),46.1%的 CABG 组无复合结局(而 PCI 组为 38.7%,p < 0.01)。
在患有 ACS 和多支血管 CAD 的非常高龄患者中,CABG 在 3 年内似乎比 PCI 在生存和复合终点方面具有优势。在非常高龄患者中优化 CABG 的获益需要不存在严重充血性心力衰竭、肺部疾病和外周血管疾病。