• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Lessons from the SYNTAX trial.SYNTAX 试验的经验教训。
J Saudi Heart Assoc. 2010 Apr;22(2):35-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jsha.2010.02.003. Epub 2010 Feb 24.
2
Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with three-vessel disease: final five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial.冠状动脉旁路移植术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗对三血管病变患者的比较:SYNTAX 试验的最终五年随访结果。
Eur Heart J. 2014 Oct 21;35(40):2821-30. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu213. Epub 2014 May 21.
3
Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial.冠状动脉旁路移植术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗在三支病变合并左主干病变患者中的比较:随机、临床 SYNTAX 试验的 5 年随访结果。
Lancet. 2013 Feb 23;381(9867):629-38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60141-5.
4
Treatment of complex coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes: 5-year results comparing outcomes of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in the SYNTAX trial.糖尿病患者复杂冠状动脉疾病的治疗:SYNTAX 试验比较旁路手术和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗 5 年结果。
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 May;43(5):1006-13. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt017. Epub 2013 Feb 14.
5
Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial.比较冠状动脉旁路移植术与药物洗脱支架置入术治疗左主干和/或三血管病变:SYNTAX 试验 3 年随访结果。
Eur Heart J. 2011 Sep;32(17):2125-34. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr213. Epub 2011 Jun 22.
6
Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization.冠状动脉血运重建术后卒率比较:外科手术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jul 24;72(4):386-398. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.071.
7
Predictive accuracy of SYNTAX score for predicting long-term outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery revascularization.SYNTAX 评分预测非保护左主干冠状动脉血运重建长期预后的准确性。
Am J Cardiol. 2011 Feb 1;107(3):360-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.09.029.
8
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Non-Protected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: 1-Year Outcomes in a High Volume Single Center Study.非保护左主干冠状动脉疾病的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术:一项高容量单中心研究的1年结果
Life (Basel). 2022 Feb 27;12(3):347. doi: 10.3390/life12030347.
9
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗左主干狭窄患者的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Oct 1;2(10):1079-1088. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2895.
10
Current Use and Trends in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Percutaneous Intervention.无保护左主干经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的现状与趋势。
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2020 Feb 8;22(4):16. doi: 10.1007/s11886-020-1268-8.

引用本文的文献

1
Critical appraisal of cardiology guidelines on revascularisation: clinical practice.心血管疾病血运重建指南的批判性评估:临床实践
Open Heart. 2018 Feb 24;5(1):e000779. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000779. eCollection 2018.

本文引用的文献

1
Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. 1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial.随机比较糖尿病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术。CARDia(糖尿病患者冠状动脉血运重建)试验的 1 年结果。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Feb 2;55(5):432-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.014.
2
Revascularization strategies of coronary multiple vessel disease in the Drug Eluting Stent Era: one year follow-up results of the ERACI III Trial.药物洗脱支架时代冠状动脉多支血管病变的血运重建策略:ERACI III试验的一年随访结果
EuroIntervention. 2006 May;2(1):53-60.
3
The SYNTAX score in practice: an aid for patient selection for complex PCI.SYNTAX评分在实践中的应用:辅助复杂经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者的选择
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Apr 1;73(5):618-9. doi: 10.1002/ccd.22043.
4
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗严重冠状动脉疾病的比较
N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 5;360(10):961-72. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804626. Epub 2009 Feb 18.
5
Coronary revascularization in context.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 5;360(10):1024-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe0900452. Epub 2009 Feb 18.
6
ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: a report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.美国心脏病学会基金会/心血管造影和介入学会/胸外科医师学会/美国胸外科协会/美国心脏协会/美国核心脏病学会2009年冠状动脉血运重建适宜性标准:由美国心脏病学会基金会适宜性标准工作组、心血管造影和介入学会、胸外科医师学会、美国胸外科协会、美国心脏协会以及美国核心脏病学会发布的报告,得到美国超声心动图学会、美国心力衰竭学会和心血管计算机断层扫描学会认可。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Feb 10;53(6):530-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.10.005.
7
Statins and stroke.他汀类药物与中风
Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2008 Jun;2(3):157-66. doi: 10.1177/1753944708091776.
8
Incidence and correlates of drug-eluting stent thrombosis in routine clinical practice. 4-year results from a large 2-institutional cohort study.常规临床实践中药物洗脱支架血栓形成的发生率及相关因素。一项大型双中心队列研究的4年结果。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Sep 30;52(14):1134-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.006.
9
Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis.糖尿病患者与非糖尿病患者使用药物洗脱支架和裸金属支架的疗效比较:协作网络荟萃分析
BMJ. 2008 Aug 29;337:a1331. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1331.
10
Meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials on long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for multivessel coronary artery disease.四项关于多支冠状动脉疾病冠状动脉搭桥术与经皮冠状动脉介入支架置入术长期预后的随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
Am J Cardiol. 2008 May 1;101(9):1259-62. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.12.026. Epub 2008 Mar 4.

SYNTAX 试验的经验教训。

Lessons from the SYNTAX trial.

作者信息

Alamri Hussein S, Alotaiby Mohammed, Almoghairi Abdulrahman, El Oakley Rieda M

机构信息

Departments of Cardiology, Prince Sultan Cardiac Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and the Department of Surgery, Benghazi Medical Centre, Benghazi, Libya.

出版信息

J Saudi Heart Assoc. 2010 Apr;22(2):35-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jsha.2010.02.003. Epub 2010 Feb 24.

DOI:10.1016/j.jsha.2010.02.003
PMID:23960592
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3727438/
Abstract

Despite the fact that CABG is the standard of care for patients with multivessel coronary arteries and/or left main stem stenosis, PCI has become a rival to CABG in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease or left main disease. However, the need for repeat revascularization, in-stent stenosis and thrombosis remain the achilis heal of PCI. SYNTAX trial randomized patients with left main disease and/or three-vessel disease to PCI with TAXus stent or CABG with the concept that PCI is not inferior to CABG. At 1 and 2 years follow up, MACCE was significantly increased in PCI patients mainly attributed to increased rate of repeat revascularization; however, stroke was significantly more with CABG. The composite safety endpoint of death/stroke/MI was comparable between the 2 groups. Therefore the criterion for non-inferiority was not met. What we learn from SYNTAX is that multi disciplinary team approach should be the standard of care when recommending treatment in more complex coronary artery disease. SYNTAX makes interventionists and surgeons come together, it may set the benchmark for MVD revascularization. PCI and CABG should be considered complementary rather than competitive revascularization strategies. There is no substitute for sound clinical judgment that takes into account the patient's overall clinical profile, functionality, co-morbidities, as well as the patient's coronary anatomy. The SYNTAX Score should be utilized to decide on treatment of patients with LM/MVD. Patients with low and intermediate score can be treated with PCI or CABG with equal results. Those with high score do better with CABG. SYNTAX trial showed that 66% of patients with 3VD or LMD are still best treated with CABG. In the remaining 1/3 of patients with low syntax score, PCI may be considered as an alternative to surgery. Finally, medical treatment should be optimized in patients going for CABG.

摘要

尽管冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)是多支冠状动脉病变和/或左主干狭窄患者的标准治疗方法,但经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)已成为多支冠状动脉疾病或左主干疾病患者CABG的竞争对手。然而,再次血运重建的需求、支架内狭窄和血栓形成仍然是PCI的致命弱点。SYNTAX试验将左主干疾病和/或三支血管疾病患者随机分为接受紫杉醇支架PCI组或CABG组,其理念是PCI不劣于CABG。在1年和2年的随访中,PCI患者的主要不良心血管和脑血管事件(MACCE)显著增加,主要归因于再次血运重建率的增加;然而,CABG后的卒中发生率显著更高。两组之间死亡/卒中/心肌梗死的复合安全终点相当。因此,未达到非劣效性标准。我们从SYNTAX试验中学到的是,在推荐治疗更复杂的冠状动脉疾病时,多学科团队方法应成为标准治疗方法。SYNTAX试验使介入医生和外科医生走到一起,它可能为多支血管疾病血运重建设定基准。PCI和CABG应被视为互补而非竞争性的血运重建策略。没有什么能替代考虑患者整体临床情况、功能、合并症以及冠状动脉解剖结构的合理临床判断。应使用SYNTAX评分来决定左主干/多支血管疾病患者的治疗方案。低、中评分患者接受PCI或CABG治疗效果相当。高评分患者接受CABG治疗效果更好。SYNTAX试验表明,66%的三支血管疾病或左主干疾病患者仍最好接受CABG治疗。在其余1/3低SYNTAX评分患者中,PCI可被视为手术的替代方案。最后,对于接受CABG的患者,应优化药物治疗。