De Marzo Vincenzo, D'amario Domenico, Galli Mattia, Vergallo Rocco, Porto Italo
Unit of Interventional Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Unit of Interventional Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy -
Minerva Cardioangiol. 2018 Oct;66(5):576-593. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4725.18.04679-0. Epub 2018 Apr 11.
Before the percutaneous era, the mortality rate of patients with coronary heart disease not suitable for cardiac surgery was extremely high. This limit has been progressively exceeded with the advent of minimally invasive approaches, which, although initially intended exclusively for low risk scenarios, was then employed in complex patients often too compromised to undergo cardiac surgery. We are currently witnessing, however, a sudden expansion in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in extreme cases, perceived as high-risk by operators, imposing an important burden of human and economic resources on interventional cardiology as a whole. In this review, the literature regarding the current definition of high-risk PCI and its implications has been reviewed. In summary, all proposed definitions of high risk PCI combine features related to three main clinical areas: 1) patient risk factors and comorbidities (incorporating those which preclude surgical or percutaneous revascularization such as diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, lung disease, frailty, advanced age); 2) location of the disease and complexity of coronary anatomy (including multi-vessel disease, left main disease, chronic total occlusion, bifurcations); 3) hemodynamic clinical status (ventricular dysfunction, concomitant valvular disease or unstable characteristics). Importantly, encouraging results in terms of efficacy and gains in health status of PCI in (variously defined) high-risk, as compared to the low-risks patients, are reported. Thus, treating high-risk patients is becoming increasingly relevant, to the point that current guidelines now particularly highlight the appropriateness of percutaneous interventions in this setting .
在经皮介入治疗时代之前,不适合心脏手术的冠心病患者死亡率极高。随着微创方法的出现,这一局限逐渐被突破,尽管微创方法最初仅用于低风险情况,但后来也应用于病情复杂、往往因身体过于虚弱而无法接受心脏手术的患者。然而,目前我们正目睹在极端情况下经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)突然增多,手术医生认为这些情况属于高风险,这给整个介入心脏病学带来了巨大的人力和经济资源负担。在本综述中,我们回顾了有关当前高风险PCI定义及其影响的文献。总之,所有提出的高风险PCI定义都结合了与三个主要临床领域相关的特征:1)患者风险因素和合并症(包括那些排除手术或经皮血管重建的因素,如糖尿病、慢性阻塞性肺疾病、慢性肾病、肺部疾病、身体虚弱、高龄);2)疾病位置和冠状动脉解剖结构的复杂性(包括多支血管病变、左主干病变、慢性完全闭塞、分叉病变);3)血流动力学临床状态(心室功能障碍、合并瓣膜疾病或不稳定特征)。重要的是,与低风险患者相比,(各种定义的)高风险PCI在疗效和健康状况改善方面均取得了令人鼓舞的结果。因此,治疗高风险患者变得越来越重要,以至于当前指南特别强调了在这种情况下经皮介入治疗的适宜性。