Biancari F, Mariscalco G, Rubino A S, Vinco G, Onorati F, Faggian G, Juvonen T, Airaksinen J
Department of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Department of Surgical and Morphological Sciences, Cardiac Surgery Unit, Varese University Hospital, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Heart Lung Vessel. 2014;6(4):244-52.
A number of studies reported on a possible increased risk of morbidity and mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcome of patients undergoing coronary surgery with or without prior percutaneous coronary intervention was performed. Only studies reporting results of adjusted analysis and excluding acute percutaneous coronary intervention failures were included in this meta-analysis.
Literature search yielded nine studies reporting on 68,645 patients who underwent coronary surgery. Of them, 8,358 (12.2%) had a prior percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients without prior percutaneous coronary intervention were significantly older (p=0.002), had significantly higher prevalence of left main stenosis (p=0.005) and three-vessel disease (p<0.0001). Prior percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with higher risk of resternotomy for bleeding (p=0.04) and dialysis (p=0.003). Thirty-day/in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention (pooled rate: 2.7% vs 2.0%, risk ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.84, p=0.02) as confirmed also by generic inverse variance analysis (risk ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.93, p=0.005). Prior percutaneous coronary intervention did not affect late outcome (five studies included, risk ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.28, p=0.43).
Prior percutaneous coronary intervention seems to be associated with an increased risk of immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality after coronary surgery, but does not affect late mortality. These results are not conclusive and need to be confirmed by studies of better quality evaluating the impact of indication, timing, type of stents, amount of treated vessels and number of previous percutaneous coronary interventions.
多项研究报告称,既往接受过经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者在冠状动脉搭桥术后发病和死亡风险可能增加。
对比较有或无既往经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的冠状动脉手术患者结局的研究进行系统评价和荟萃分析。本荟萃分析仅纳入报告了校正分析结果且排除急性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗失败病例的研究。
文献检索得到9项报告68645例接受冠状动脉手术患者情况的研究。其中,8358例(12.2%)既往接受过经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。未接受过经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者年龄显著更大(p=0.002),左主干狭窄(p=0.005)和三支血管病变(p<0.0001)的患病率显著更高。既往经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与再次开胸止血(p=0.04)和透析(p=0.003)风险较高相关。既往接受过经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者30天/住院死亡率显著更高(合并率:2.7%对2.0%,风险比1.39,95%置信区间1.06-1.84,p=0.02),一般逆方差分析也证实了这一点(风险比1.47,95%置信区间1.12-1.93,p=0.005)。既往经皮冠状动脉介入治疗不影响远期结局(纳入5项研究,风险比1.07,95%置信区间0.90-1.28,p=0.43)。
既往经皮冠状动脉介入治疗似乎与冠状动脉手术后早期发病和死亡风险增加相关,但不影响远期死亡率。这些结果尚无定论,需要通过质量更高的研究来证实,这些研究应评估适应证、时机、支架类型、治疗血管数量以及既往经皮冠状动脉介入治疗次数的影响。