Hahn Joo-Yong, Choi Seung-Hyuk, Jeong Jin-Ok, Song Young Bin, Choi Jin-Ho, Park Yong Hawn, Chun Woo Jung, Oh Ju Hyeon, Cho Dae Kyoung, Lim Seong-Hoon, Choi Yu Jeong, Im Eul-Soon, Won Kyung-Heon, Lee Sung Yun, Kim Sang-Wook, Gwon Hyeon-Cheol
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Aug 1;240:114-119. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.03.075. Epub 2017 Mar 18.
Although coronary angiography is still the technique most widely used to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the appropriate angiographic indication of revascularization for intermediate coronary lesions remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare conservative versus aggressive strategies with angiographic guidance alone in patients with intermediate coronary lesions.
A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter stenosis by quantitative coronary analysis were randomly assigned to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed using everolimus-eluting stents in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularization at 1year. The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p<0.001). The cumulative rate of the primary endpoint was 7.3% in the conservative group and 6.8% in the aggressive group (the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4%; p=0.006 for non-inferiority with a predefined non-inferiority margin of 5.0%). The risk of death or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% CI, 0.19-1.33; p=0.17) and revascularization (HR 1.42; 95% CI, 0.80-2.52; p=0.23) was not significantly different between the 2 groups.
Conservative revascularization was non-inferior to aggressive revascularization for intermediate coronary lesions. Revascularization of intermediate lesions can be safely deferred in patients undergoing PCI with angiographic guidance alone.
URL: http://ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00743899.
尽管冠状动脉造影仍是最广泛用于指导经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的技术,但对于中度冠状动脉病变,血管造影指导下血运重建的合适指征仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较仅在血管造影指导下,中度冠状动脉病变患者采用保守策略与积极策略(的效果)。
通过定量冠状动脉分析,共有899例直径狭窄50%至70%的中度冠状动脉病变患者被随机分配至保守组(n = 449)或积极组(n = 450)。对于中度病变,积极组使用依维莫司洗脱支架进行PCI,但保守组则推迟PCI。主要终点是1年时全因死亡、心肌梗死或任何血运重建的复合终点。保守组每位患者治疗的病变数为0.8±0.9,积极组为1.7±0.9(p<0.001)。保守组主要终点的累积发生率为7.3%,积极组为6.8%(单侧95%置信区间[CI]的上限,3.4%;在预先定义的非劣效性界值为5.0%时,非劣效性p = 0.006)。两组之间死亡或心肌梗死风险(风险比[HR] 0.50;95% CI,0.19 - 1.33;p = 0.17)和血运重建风险(HR 1.42;95% CI,0.80 - 2.52;p = 0.23)无显著差异。
对于中度冠状动脉病变,保守性血运重建不劣于积极的血运重建。在仅接受血管造影指导的PCI患者中,中度病变的血运重建可安全推迟。