Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Lancet. 2018 Mar 10;391(10124):939-948. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30423-9. Epub 2018 Feb 23.
Numerous randomised trials have compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, no studies have been powered to detect a difference in mortality between the revascularisation strategies.
We did a systematic review up to July 19, 2017, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents. Eligible studies included patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease who did not present with acute myocardial infarction, did PCI with stents (bare-metal or drug-eluting), and had more than 1 year of follow-up for all-cause mortality. In a collaborative, pooled analysis of individual patient data from the identified trials, we estimated all-cause mortality up to 5 years using Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared PCI with CABG using a random-effects Cox proportional-hazards model stratified by trial. Consistency of treatment effect was explored in subgroup analyses, with subgroups defined according to baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics.
We included 11 randomised trials involving 11 518 patients selected by heart teams who were assigned to PCI (n=5753) or to CABG (n=5765). 976 patients died over a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (SD 1·4). Mean Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was 26·0 (SD 9·5), with 1798 (22·1%) of 8138 patients having a SYNTAX score of 33 or higher. 5 year all-cause mortality was 11·2% after PCI and 9·2% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR] 1·20, 95% CI 1·06-1·37; p=0·0038). 5 year all-cause mortality was significantly different between the interventions in patients with multivessel disease (11·5% after PCI vs 8·9% after CABG; HR 1·28, 95% CI 1·09-1·49; p=0·0019), including in those with diabetes (15·5% vs 10·0%; 1·48, 1·19-1·84; p=0·0004), but not in those without diabetes (8·7% vs 8·0%; 1·08, 0·86-1·36; p=0·49). SYNTAX score had a significant effect on the difference between the interventions in multivessel disease. 5 year all-cause mortality was similar between the interventions in patients with left main disease (10·7% after PCI vs 10·5% after CABG; 1·07, 0·87-1·33; p=0·52), regardless of diabetes status and SYNTAX score.
CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies.
None.
许多随机试验比较了冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)在冠状动脉疾病患者中的疗效。然而,没有研究能够检测出这两种血运重建策略在死亡率方面的差异。
我们进行了一项系统评价,截至 2017 年 7 月 19 日,旨在确定比较支架置入的 CABG 与 PCI 的随机临床试验。合格的研究包括患有多支血管或左主干冠状动脉疾病且未发生急性心肌梗死的患者,接受支架 PCI(裸金属或药物洗脱支架),且所有患者均随访超过 1 年以评估全因死亡率。我们通过协作、汇总分析来自确定的试验的个体患者数据,使用 Kaplan-Meier 分析估计了 5 年内的全因死亡率,并使用按试验分层的随机效应 Cox 比例风险模型比较了 PCI 与 CABG 的治疗效果。通过亚组分析探索治疗效果的一致性,亚组根据基线临床和解剖特征进行定义。
我们纳入了 11 项由心脏团队选择的随机试验,共纳入 11518 名患者,他们被随机分配接受 PCI(n=5753)或 CABG(n=5765)治疗。平均随访 3.8 年(SD 1.4)时,976 名患者死亡。平均 SYNTAX 评分(26.0 [SD 9.5])为 26.0(SD 9.5),1798(22.1%)名患者的 SYNTAX 评分为 33 或更高。PCI 组 5 年全因死亡率为 11.2%,CABG 组为 9.2%(HR 1.20,95%CI 1.06-1.37;p=0.0038)。多支血管疾病患者中,两种干预措施之间的 5 年全因死亡率存在显著差异(PCI 组为 11.5%,CABG 组为 8.9%;HR 1.28,95%CI 1.09-1.49;p=0.0019),包括糖尿病患者(PCI 组为 15.5%,CABG 组为 10.0%;1.48,1.19-1.84;p=0.0004),但在非糖尿病患者中则无差异(PCI 组为 8.7%,CABG 组为 8.0%;1.08,0.86-1.36;p=0.49)。SYNTAX 评分对多支血管疾病中两种干预措施之间的差异有显著影响。左主干疾病患者中,两种干预措施的 5 年全因死亡率相似(PCI 组为 10.7%,CABG 组为 10.5%;1.07,0.87-1.33;p=0.52),无论糖尿病状况和 SYNTAX 评分如何。
在多支血管疾病患者中,CABG 的死亡率低于 PCI,尤其是在合并糖尿病和更高冠状动脉复杂性的患者中。在左主干疾病患者中,CABG 并不优于 PCI。需要更长时间的随访以更好地明确两种血运重建策略之间的死亡率差异。
左主干疾病患者中,CABG 与 PCI 的死亡率无显著差异,多支血管疾病患者中 CABG 较 PCI 具有生存优势。