Suppr超能文献

机器人辅助杂交冠状动脉血运重建:干预顺序重要吗?

Robotically assisted hybrid coronary revascularization: does sequence of intervention matter?

作者信息

Srivastava Mukta C, Vesely Mark R, Lee Jeffrey D, Lehr Eric J, Wehman Brody, Bonaros Nikolaos, Schachner Thomas, Friedrich Guy J, Zimrin David A, Bonatti Johannes O

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.

出版信息

Innovations (Phila). 2013 May-Jun;8(3):177-83. doi: 10.1097/IMI.0b013e3182a2503a.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a treatment strategy for the revascularization of multivessel coronary disease that combines the advantages of both minimally invasive surgical techniques and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The optimal sequence by which revascularization should be accomplished has not been determined. We investigated clinical outcomes in a series of patients planned for HCR via robotically assisted totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) and standard PCI based on revascularization sequence.

METHODS

A total of 238 patients planned for HCR between 2001 and 2011 were divided into three groups based on treatment sequence: (a) TECAB before PCI, (b) PCI before TECAB, and (c) same-session procedure. Multiple procedural and clinical end points before discharge and up to 2 years after the procedure were compared between the three groups in an intention-to-treat analysis. Demographic features were reviewed to determine baseline differences between each group.

RESULTS

Of the 238 patients, 175 (73.5%) underwent TECAB before PCI, 38 patients (16.0%) underwent PCI before TECAB, and 25 (10.5%) underwent a simultaneous revascularization procedure. At baseline, the patients undergoing TECAB before PCI were significantly older. There was a significantly higher incidence of previous myocardial infarction in the PCI-first group (P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), with shorter ICU stays in the simultaneous revascularization group (P = 0.031) and shorter hospital LOS in the PCI before TECAB group (P = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, revascularization sequence did not dramatically impact clinical outcomes in our observational study. The patients undergoing PCI-first and same-session interventions had shorter hospital and ICU LOS compared with the patients undergoing surgery first. Our findings suggest that no revascularization approach is arbitrarily superior and that revascularization sequence should be individualized on the basis of patient presentation and anatomical considerations.

摘要

目的

杂交冠状动脉血运重建术(HCR)是一种用于多支冠状动脉疾病血运重建的治疗策略,它结合了微创外科技术和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的优点。尚未确定血运重建应完成的最佳顺序。我们基于血运重建顺序,对一系列计划通过机器人辅助完全内镜冠状动脉旁路移植术(TECAB)和标准PCI进行HCR的患者的临床结局进行了研究。

方法

2001年至2011年间计划进行HCR的238例患者根据治疗顺序分为三组:(a)PCI前进行TECAB,(b)TECAB前进行PCI,(c)同期手术。在一项意向性分析中,比较了三组在出院前和术后长达2年的多个手术和临床终点。回顾人口统计学特征以确定每组之间的基线差异。

结果

238例患者中,175例(73.5%)在PCI前进行了TECAB,38例(16.0%)在TECAB前进行了PCI,25例(10.5%)进行了同期血运重建手术。在基线时,PCI前进行TECAB的患者年龄明显更大。PCI优先组既往心肌梗死的发生率明显更高(P<0.001)。重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间(LOS)有显著差异,同期血运重建组的ICU住院时间较短(P=0.031),TECAB前进行PCI组的住院LOS较短(P=0.021)。

结论

总之,在我们的观察性研究中,血运重建顺序并未对临床结局产生显著影响。与首先接受手术的患者相比,首先接受PCI和同期干预的患者的住院和ICU LOS更短。我们的研究结果表明,没有一种血运重建方法具有绝对优势,血运重建顺序应根据患者的表现和解剖学考虑进行个体化。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验