Lee Pil Hyung, Lee Jong-Young, Lee Cheol Whan, Han Seungbong, Ahn Jung-Min, Park Duk-Woo, Kang Soo-Jin, Lee Seung-Whan, Kim Young-Hak, Park Seong-Wook, Park Seung-Jung
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Am Heart J. 2017 Nov;193:76-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.08.003. Epub 2017 Aug 10.
There are limited data on comparative outcomes and its determinants following coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) in a real-world setting.
A total of 3,504 consecutive patients with LMCAD treated with CABG (n=1,301) or PCI with DES (n=2,203) from the IRIS-MAIN registry were analyzed. The relative treatment effect of one strategy over another was assessed by propensity-score matching method. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.
Median follow-up duration was 4.7 years. In the matched cohort, both groups demonstrated a similar risk for the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.77-1.15; P=.54). Compared with CABG, PCI exhibited higher risks of myocardial infarction (HR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.16-3.83; P=.01) and repeated revascularization (HR: 5.95; 95% CI: 3.94-8.98; P<.001). In the overall population, age, presence of chronic kidney disease, and low ejection fraction (<40%) were key clinical predictors of primary outcome regardless of the treatment strategy. However, factors deemed to be associated with perioperative morbidity were determinants of primary outcome in the CABG group, whereas those generally associated with the severity of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease were strong predictors in the PCI group.
Among patients with significant LMCAD, the long-term risk of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar between CABG and PCI. Clinical variables that differentially predict adverse outcomes might be useful in triaging appropriate revascularization strategy.
在现实环境中,关于冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)和药物洗脱支架(DES)经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)治疗左主干冠状动脉疾病(LMCAD)后的比较结果及其决定因素的数据有限。
对IRIS-MAIN注册研究中连续接受CABG(n = 1301)或DES PCI(n = 2203)治疗的3504例LMCAD患者进行分析。通过倾向评分匹配法评估一种策略相对于另一种策略的相对治疗效果。主要结局是死亡、心肌梗死或中风的复合结局。
中位随访时间为4.7年。在匹配队列中,两组的主要结局风险相似(调整后风险比[HR]:0.94;95%置信区间[CI]:0.77 - 1.15;P = 0.54)。与CABG相比,PCI发生心肌梗死(HR:2.11;95% CI:1.16 - 3.83;P = 0.01)和再次血运重建(HR:5.95;95% CI:3.94 - 8.98;P < 0.001)的风险更高。在总体人群中,无论治疗策略如何,年龄、慢性肾病的存在以及低射血分数(<40%)是主要结局的关键临床预测因素。然而,被认为与围手术期发病率相关的因素是CABG组主要结局的决定因素,而那些通常与动脉粥样硬化性冠状动脉疾病严重程度相关的因素是PCI组的强预测因素。
在患有严重LMCAD的患者中,CABG和PCI在死亡、心肌梗死或中风复合结局的长期风险方面相似。不同地预测不良结局的临床变量可能有助于分诊合适的血运重建策略。