Suppr超能文献

是否需要第三条动脉血管?接受双侧胸廓内动脉治疗三支血管冠心病患者的桡动脉与大隐静脉比较。

Is a third arterial conduit necessary? Comparison of the radial artery and saphenous vein in patients receiving bilateral internal thoracic arteries for triple vessel coronary disease.

作者信息

Shi William Y, Tatoulis James, Newcomb Andrew E, Rosalion Alexander, Fuller John A, Buxton Brian F

机构信息

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

出版信息

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016 Jul;50(1):53-60. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezv467. Epub 2016 Jan 19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITAs) is associated with improved long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, it is unclear whether the addition of a radial artery (RA) in patients already receiving BITA confers any additional survival benefit over that of a saphenous vein (SV). As such, we reviewed our multicentre experience and compared both strategies.

METHODS

From 1995 to 2010, 1497 patients underwent primary isolated CABG for three-vessel coronary disease using BITAs. An SV was used as a third conduit in 460 (31%) patients and an RA in 1037 (69%). A total of 1258 distal anastomoses were performed using RAs and these were to the diagonal territory in 169, the circumflex in 454 and the right coronary in 635. Survival data were obtained using the National Death Index and propensity-score matching was used for risk-adjustment.

RESULTS

The overall cohort was young (mean age 61 ± 9 years). Patients receiving RAs were more likely to be younger, and were less likely to have experienced a prior myocardial infarction. At 30 days, mortality was similar (BITA + SV: 5, 1.1% vs BITA + RA: 9, 0.9%, P = 0.77). At 15 years, BITA + RA patients experienced improved unadjusted survival (BITA + SV: 67 ± 4.6% vs BITA + RA: 82 ± 3.2%, P < 0.0001). Multivariable Cox regression in the entire cohort also showed the BITA + RA group to be associated with better survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.75, P < 0.001). After propensity-score matching of 262 patient-pairs, BITA + RA experienced similar 30-day mortality (BITA + SV: 3, 1.1% vs BITA + RA: 3, 1.1%, P > 0.99). However, at 15 years, BITA + RA patients experienced improved risk-adjusted survival (BITA + SV: 72 ± 6.0% vs BITA + RA: 82 ± 5.2%, P = 0.021). The RA was associated with better risk-adjusted survival for grafting of the right coronary and its branches (148 matched pairs; SV-RCA: 74 ± 7.8% vs RA-RCA: 86 ± 6.5%, P = 0.0046 at 15 years).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an RA graft even in patients already receiving BITAs is associated with a survival benefit. In younger patients with a reasonable long-term life expectancy, surgeons should strive to achieve total arterial revascularization with BITAs and radial arteries.

摘要

目的

双侧胸廓内动脉(BITA)的应用与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后长期生存率的提高相关。然而,对于已接受BITA的患者,加用桡动脉(RA)是否比大隐静脉(SV)能带来额外的生存获益尚不清楚。因此,我们回顾了我们的多中心经验并比较了这两种策略。

方法

1995年至2010年,1497例患者因三支血管冠状动脉疾病接受了使用BITA的初次单纯CABG。460例(31%)患者使用SV作为第三条移植血管,1037例(69%)患者使用RA。共使用RA进行了1258次远端吻合,其中169次吻合至对角支区域,454次吻合至回旋支,635次吻合至右冠状动脉。使用国家死亡指数获取生存数据,并采用倾向评分匹配进行风险调整。

结果

整个队列较为年轻(平均年龄61±9岁)。接受RA的患者更可能较年轻,且既往发生心肌梗死的可能性较小。30天时,死亡率相似(BITA+SV:5例,1.1%;BITA+RA:9例,0.9%,P=0.77)。15年时,BITA+RA患者的未调整生存率有所提高(BITA+SV:67±4.6%;BITA+RA:82±3.2%,P<0.0001)。整个队列的多变量Cox回归也显示BITA+RA组的生存率更高(风险比0.58,95%可信区间0.44-0.75,P<0.001)。在对262对患者进行倾向评分匹配后,BITA+RA的30天死亡率相似(BITA+SV:3例,1.1%;BITA+RA:3例,1.1%,P>0.99)。然而,15年时,BITA+RA患者的风险调整生存率有所提高(BITA+SV:72±6.0%;BITA+RA:82±5.2%,P=0.021)。对于右冠状动脉及其分支的移植,RA与更好的风险调整生存率相关(148对匹配;SV-RCA:74±7.8%;RA-RCA:86±6.5%,15年时P=0.0046)。

结论

即使在已接受BITA的患者中加用RA移植血管也与生存获益相关。对于预期寿命合理的年轻患者,外科医生应努力使用BITA和桡动脉实现完全动脉化血运重建。

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