Mansur Antonio de Padua, Hueb Whady Armino, Takada Julio Yoshio, Avakian Solange Desirée, Soares Paulo Roberto, Garzilo Cibele Larrosa, Kalil Filho Roberto, Ramires José A F
Heart Institute (InCor), University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil
Heart Institute (InCor), University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014 Dec;19(6):997-1001. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivu288. Epub 2014 Sep 2.
Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in women. The proposed treatments for women are similar to those for men. However, in women with multivessel stable coronary artery disease and normal left ventricular function, the best treatment is unknown.
A post hoc analysis of the MASS II study with 10 years of follow-up, mean (standard deviation) 6.8 (3.7) years, enrolled between May 1995 and May 2000, evaluated 188 women with chronic stable multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent medical treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Primary end-points were incidence of total mortality, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or refractory angina. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.
Women treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and medical treatment had more primary events than those treated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery, respectively, of 34, 44 and 22% (P = 0.003). Survival rates at 10 years were 72% for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 72% for percutaneous coronary intervention and 56% for medical treatment (P = 0.156). For the composite end-point, Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, diabetes, hypertension, treatment allocation, prior myocardial infarction, smoking, number of vessels affected and total cholesterol, had a higher incidence of primary events with medical treatment than with coronary artery bypass graft surgery [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.38 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.40-4.05); P = 0.001], a lower incidence with percutaneous coronary intervention than with medical treatment [HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.38-0.95); P = 0.031] but no differences between coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention. Regarding death, a protective effect was observed with percutaneous coronary intervention compared with medical treatment [HR = 0.44 (95% CI: 0.21-0.90); P = 0.025].
Percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery compared with medical treatment had better results after 10 years of follow-up.
冠状动脉疾病是女性死亡的主要原因。针对女性的拟议治疗方法与男性相似。然而,对于患有多支血管稳定型冠状动脉疾病且左心室功能正常的女性,最佳治疗方法尚不清楚。
对MASS II研究进行事后分析,该研究随访了10年,平均(标准差)为6.8(3.7)年,于1995年5月至2000年5月期间纳入,评估了188例患有慢性稳定型多支血管冠状动脉疾病并接受药物治疗、经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植手术的女性。主要终点为全因死亡率、Q波心肌梗死或难治性心绞痛的发生率。数据根据意向性分析原则进行分析。
接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗和药物治疗的女性发生主要事件的比例分别高于接受冠状动脉旁路移植手术的女性,分别为34%、44%和22%(P = 0.003)。冠状动脉旁路移植手术10年生存率为72%,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗为72%,药物治疗为56%(P = 0.156)。对于复合终点,在对年龄、糖尿病、高血压、治疗分配、既往心肌梗死、吸烟、受累血管数量和总胆固醇进行校正的Cox回归分析中,药物治疗组的主要事件发生率高于冠状动脉旁路移植手术组[风险比(HR)= 2.38(95%置信区间(CI):1.40 - 4.05);P = 0.001],经皮冠状动脉介入治疗组的发生率低于药物治疗组[HR = 0.60(95% CI:0.38 - 0.95);P = 0.031],但冠状动脉旁路移植手术组和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗组之间无差异。关于死亡,与药物治疗相比,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗具有保护作用[HR = 0.44(95% CI:0.21 - 0.90);P = 0.025]。
经过10年的随访,与药物治疗相比,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗和冠状动脉旁路移植手术的效果更好。