Pi Yi, Roe Matthew T, Holmes DaJuanicia N, Chiswell Karen, Garvey J Lee, Fonarow Gregg C, de Lemos James A, Garratt Kirk N, Xian Ying
From the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (Y.P., M.T.R., D.N.H., K.C., Y.X.); China Oxford Centre for International Health Research, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China (Y.P.); Department of Emergency Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (J.L.G.); Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles (G.C.F.); Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas (J.A.d.L.); Center for Heart and Vascular Health, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE (K.N.G.).
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017 Aug;10(8). doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003490.
There are limited data on the utilization and outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) among ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients in contemporary practice.
Using data from National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines between 2007 and 2014, we analyzed trends in CABG utilization and hospital-level variation in CABG rates. Patients undergoing CABG during the index admission were categorized by the most common scenarios: (1) CABG only as the primary reperfusion strategy; (2) CABG after primary percutaneous coronary intervention; and (3) CABG after fibrinolytic therapy. A total of 15 145 patients (6.3% of the STEMI population) underwent CABG during the index hospitalization, with a decrease in utilization from 8.3% in 2007 to 5.4% in 2014 (trend value <0.001). The hospital-level use of CABG in STEMI varied widely from 0.5% to 36.2% (median, 5.3%; interquartile range [IQR], 3.5%-7.8%; value <0.001). Of all patients undergoing CABG, 45.8% underwent CABG only, 38.7% had CABG after percutaneous coronary intervention, and 8.2% CABG after fibrinolytic therapy. The median time intervals from cardiac catheterization/percutaneous coronary intervention to CABG were 23.3 hours (IQR, 3.0-70.3 hours) in CABG only, 49.7 hours (IQR, 3.2-70.3 hours) in CABG after percutaneous coronary intervention, and 56.6 hours (IQR, 22.7-96.0 hours) in CABG after fibrinolytic therapy. The Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network mortality risk scores differed modestly (median, 33; IQR, 28-40 versus median, 32; IQR, 27-38) between CABG and non-CABG patients. Patients undergoing CABG had similar in-hospital mortality rate (5.4% versus 5.1%) as those not treated with CABG.
CABG is performed infrequently in STEMI patients during the index hospitalization, with rates declining in contemporary US practice over time. There was marked hospital-level variation in the use of CABG, and CABG was typically performed within 1 to 3 days after angiography. Observed mortality rates appear low, suggesting that CABG might be safely performed in select STEMI patients in a timely fashion.
在当代实践中,关于ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的应用情况和治疗结果的数据有限。
利用2007年至2014年国家心血管数据注册库急性冠状动脉治疗和干预结果网络注册库(Get With The Guidelines)的数据,我们分析了CABG的应用趋势以及医院层面CABG率的差异。在首次住院期间接受CABG的患者按最常见的情况分类:(1)仅将CABG作为主要再灌注策略;(2)在初次经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后进行CABG;(3)在溶栓治疗后进行CABG。共有15145例患者(占STEMI患者总数的6.3%)在首次住院期间接受了CABG,其应用率从2007年的8.3%降至2014年的5.4%(趋势值<0.001)。STEMI患者中CABG在医院层面的应用差异很大,从0.5%到36.2%(中位数为5.3%;四分位间距[IQR]为3.5% - 7.8%;P值<0.001)。在所有接受CABG的患者中,45.8%仅接受了CABG,38.7%在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后进行了CABG,8.2%在溶栓治疗后进行了CABG。仅接受CABG的患者从心导管检查/经皮冠状动脉介入治疗到CABG的中位时间间隔为23.3小时(IQR为3.0 - 70.3小时),经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后进行CABG的患者为49.7小时(IQR为3.2 - 70.3小时),溶栓治疗后进行CABG的患者为56.6小时(IQR为22.7 - 96.0小时)。急性冠状动脉治疗和干预结果网络死亡风险评分在接受CABG和未接受CABG的患者之间略有差异(中位数分别为33;IQR为28 - 40与中位数32;IQR为27 - 38)。接受CABG的患者与未接受CABG治疗的患者院内死亡率相似(分别为5.4%和5.1%)。
在首次住院期间,STEMI患者很少进行CABG,在美国当代实践中,其发生率随时间下降。CABG的应用在医院层面存在显著差异,且CABG通常在血管造影后1至3天内进行。观察到的死亡率似乎较低,这表明在部分STEMI患者中及时进行CABG可能是安全的。