Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, University of Leipzig-Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Leipzig-Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Jan;8(1 Pt A):30-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.08.006. Epub 2014 Dec 10.
The aim of this analysis was to assess the 7-year long-term safety and effectiveness of a randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery for the treatment of isolated proximal left anterior descending lesions.
Long-term follow-up data comparing PCI by SES and MIDCAB surgery for isolated proximal left anterior descending lesions are sparse.
Patients were randomized either to PCI with SES (n = 65) or MIDCAB (n = 65). Follow-up data were obtained after 7 years with respect to the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Angina was assessed by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification and quality of life with Short Form 36 and MacNew quality of life questionnaires.
Follow-up was conducted in 129 patients at a median time of 7.3 years (interquartile range: 5.7, 8.3). There were no significant differences in the incidence of the primary composite endpoint between groups (22% PCI vs. 12% MIDCAB; p = 0.17) or the endpoints death (14% vs. 17%; p = 0.81) and myocardial infarction (6% vs. 9%, p = 0.74). However, the target vessel revascularization rate was higher in the PCI group (20% vs. 1.5%; p < 0.001). Clinical symptoms and quality of life improved significantly from baseline with both interventions and were similar in magnitude between groups.
At 7-year follow-up, PCI by SES and MIDCAB in isolated proximal left anterior descending lesions yielded similar long-term outcomes regarding the primary composite clinical endpoint and quality of life. Target vessel revascularization was more frequent in the PCI group. (MIDCAB Versus DES in Proximal LAD Lesions; NCT00299429).
本分析旨在评估经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与微创直接冠状动脉旁路移植术(MIDCAB)治疗孤立性左前降支近端病变的随机比较的 7 年长期安全性和有效性。
比较 PCI 与 MIDCAB 治疗孤立性左前降支近端病变的长期随访数据较为匮乏。
患者随机分为 PCI 组(n = 65)和 MIDCAB 组(n = 65)。7 年后,通过主要复合终点(死亡、心肌梗死和靶血管血运重建)获得随访数据。加拿大心血管学会分类评估心绞痛,采用 36 项简明健康调查问卷(Short Form 36)和 MacNew 生活质量问卷评估生活质量。
在中位时间 7.3 年(四分位距:5.7,8.3)时,129 例患者完成了随访。两组间主要复合终点(PCI 组 22%,MIDCAB 组 12%;p = 0.17)或终点死亡(PCI 组 14%,MIDCAB 组 17%;p = 0.81)和心肌梗死(PCI 组 6%,MIDCAB 组 9%;p = 0.74)的发生率无显著差异。然而,PCI 组靶血管血运重建率较高(20% vs. 1.5%;p < 0.001)。两种干预措施均使临床症状和生活质量从基线显著改善,且组间改善程度相似。
在 7 年随访时,孤立性左前降支近端病变的 PCI 与 MIDCAB 在主要复合临床终点和生活质量方面具有相似的长期结果。PCI 组靶血管血运重建更为频繁。(MIDCAB 与 DES 在左前降支近端病变中的应用;NCT00299429)。