Department of Atherosclerosis, Heart Institute of the University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013 Nov;146(5):1105-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.08.015. Epub 2012 Aug 31.
With progressive aging, coronary artery disease has been diagnosed at more advanced ages. Although patients aged 65 years or more have been referred to surgical or percutaneous coronary interventions, the best option for coronary artery disease treatment remains uncertain. The current study compared the 3 treatment options for coronary artery disease in patients aged 65 years or more and analyzed the impact of age in treatment options.
Patients were separated according to age: 65 years or more (n = 200) and less than 65 years (n = 411). All patients were followed for 10 years. The rates of overall mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and new revascularizations were analyzed.
Of 200 patients aged 65 years or more, 68 were randomized to medical therapy, 68 were randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention, and 64 were randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting. At 10 years, overall survival was 63% (medical therapy), 69% (percutaneous coronary intervention), and 66% (coronary artery bypass grafting) (P = .93). The survival free of combined events was 43% (medical therapy), 38% (percutaneous coronary intervention ), and 66% (coronary artery bypass grafting) (P = .007). The survival free of myocardial infarction was 82% (medical therapy), 77% (percutaneous coronary intervention), and 90% (coronary artery bypass grafting) (P = .17), and survival free of new revascularizations was 59% (medical therapy), 58% (percutaneous coronary intervention ), and 91% (coronary artery bypass grafting) (P = .0003). When the 2 age groups were compared, survival free of myocardial infarction for patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention was 77% (older patients) and 92% (younger patients) (P = .004).
In this analysis, treatment options for patients aged 65 years or more who have coronary artery disease yield similar overall survival. However, coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with fewer coronary events, and percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a higher incidence of myocardial infarction.
随着年龄的增长,冠状动脉疾病的诊断年龄也越来越大。虽然 65 岁及以上的患者已被转介接受手术或经皮冠状动脉介入治疗,但冠状动脉疾病的最佳治疗方法仍不确定。本研究比较了 65 岁及以上患者的 3 种冠状动脉疾病治疗选择,并分析了年龄对治疗选择的影响。
根据年龄将患者分为两组:65 岁及以上(n=200)和<65 岁(n=411)。所有患者均随访 10 年。分析总死亡率、急性心肌梗死和新血运重建的发生率。
在 200 名 65 岁及以上的患者中,68 名随机接受药物治疗,68 名随机接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗,64 名随机接受冠状动脉旁路移植术。10 年后,总生存率为 63%(药物治疗)、69%(经皮冠状动脉介入治疗)和 66%(冠状动脉旁路移植术)(P=0.93)。无联合事件的生存率为 43%(药物治疗)、38%(经皮冠状动脉介入治疗)和 66%(冠状动脉旁路移植术)(P=0.007)。无心肌梗死的生存率为 82%(药物治疗)、77%(经皮冠状动脉介入治疗)和 90%(冠状动脉旁路移植术)(P=0.17),无新发血运重建的生存率为 59%(药物治疗)、58%(经皮冠状动脉介入治疗)和 91%(冠状动脉旁路移植术)(P=0.0003)。当比较这两个年龄组时,接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的老年患者无心肌梗死生存率为 77%(老年患者)和 92%(年轻患者)(P=0.004)。
在本分析中,65 岁及以上患有冠状动脉疾病患者的治疗选择总体生存率相似。然而,冠状动脉旁路移植术与较少的冠状动脉事件相关,而经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与较高的心肌梗死发生率相关。