Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan.
Am J Cardiol. 2014 May 15;113(10):1652-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.02.037. Epub 2014 Mar 5.
Treatment of coronary artery disease has significantly changed over the past decade including an introduction of drug-eluting stents and a more stringent adherence to evidence-based medications. However, the impact of these advanced treatment methods on the practice patterns and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing coronary revascularization in the real world has not been yet fully evaluated. The present study population consisted of the 2 groups of patients who underwent their first coronary revascularization in the Coronary REvascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto Registry Cohort-1 (bare-metal stent era: January 2000 to December 2002, n = 8,986) and Cohort-2 (drug-eluting stent era: January 2005 to December 2007, n = 10,339). Compared with Cohort-1, the proportion of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention significantly increased in Cohort-2 (73% vs 81%, p <0.001), particularly for 3-vessel disease (50% vs 61%, p <0.001) and left main disease (18% vs 36%, p <0.001). Evidence-based medications were more frequently used in Cohort-2. The cumulative 2-year incidence of and the adjusted risk for all-cause death were not significantly different between Cohort-1 and Cohort-2 (6.2% vs 6.4%, p = 0.69, and hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 1.03, p = 0.15). Adjusted risks for both myocardial infarction and repeated coronary revascularization were significantly reduced in Cohort-2 compared with Cohort-1 (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96, p = 0.02, and HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.77, p <0.001, respectively). In conclusion, despite changes in treatment methods over time, the long-term mortality of patients undergoing coronary revascularization in the real-world clinical practice has not been changed, although there was a significant reduction of myocardial infarction and repeated coronary revascularization.
在过去的十年中,冠心病的治疗方法发生了重大变化,包括药物洗脱支架的引入以及更严格地遵循基于证据的药物治疗。然而,这些先进的治疗方法对真实世界中接受冠状动脉血运重建的患者的治疗模式和长期结局的影响尚未得到充分评估。本研究人群包括在京都注册研究队列-1 (裸金属支架时代:2000 年 1 月至 2002 年 12 月,n = 8986)和队列-2 (药物洗脱支架时代:2005 年 1 月至 2007 年 12 月,n = 10339)中首次接受冠状动脉血运重建的两组患者。与队列-1 相比,队列-2 中接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者比例显著增加(73%比 81%,p <0.001),尤其是 3 支血管病变(50%比 61%,p <0.001)和左主干病变(18%比 36%,p <0.001)。队列-2 中更频繁地使用基于证据的药物治疗。队列-1 和队列-2 之间的全因死亡 2 年累积发生率和调整风险无显著差异(6.2%比 6.4%,p = 0.69,风险比 [HR] 0.91,95%置信区间 [CI] 0.81 至 1.03,p = 0.15)。与队列-1 相比,队列-2 中再次心肌梗死和再次冠状动脉血运重建的调整风险显著降低(HR 0.80,95%CI 0.67 至 0.96,p = 0.02,HR 0.73,95%CI 0.69 至 0.77,p <0.001)。总之,尽管随着时间的推移治疗方法发生了变化,但真实世界临床实践中接受冠状动脉血运重建的患者的长期死亡率并未改变,尽管心肌梗死和再次冠状动脉血运重建的发生率显著降低。