Suppr超能文献

风险调整后分析非体外循环与体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术的长期结果。

Risk-adjusted analysis of long-term outcomes after on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

机构信息

Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Herz- und Diabeteszentrum NRW, University Hospital Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart Center Duisburg, Duisburg, Germany.

出版信息

Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021 Nov 22;33(6):857-865. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivab179.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Recent data suggested that off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) may carry a higher risk for mortality in the long term when compared to on-pump coronary artery bypass (ONCAB). We, therefore, compared long-term survival and morbidity in patients undergoing ONCAB versus OPCAB in a large single-centre cohort.

METHODS

A total of 8981 patients undergoing isolated elective/urgent coronary artery bypass grafting between January 2009 and December 2019 were analysed. Patients were stratified into 2 groups (OPCAB n = 6649/ONCAB n = 2332). The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included repeat revascularization, stroke and myocardial infarction. To adjust for potential selection bias, 1:1 nearest neighbour propensity score (PS) matching was performed resulting in 1857 matched pairs. Moreover, sensitivity analysis was applied in the entire study cohort using multivariable- and PS-adjusted Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

In the PS-matched cohort, 10-year mortality was similar between study groups [OPCAB 36.4% vs ONCAB 35.8%: hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.12; P = 0.84]. While 10-year outcomes of secondary endpoints did not differ significantly, risk of stroke (OPCAB 1.50% vs ONCAB 2.8%: HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.83; P = 0.006) and mortality (OPCAB 3.1% vs ONCAB 4.8%: HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.91; P = 0.011) at 1 year was lower in the OPCAB group. In the multivariable- and the PS-adjusted model, mortality at 10 years was not significantly different (OPCAB 34.1% vs ONCAB 35.7%: HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87-1.08; P = 0.59 and HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90-1.13; P = 0.91, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Data do not provide evidence that elective/urgent OPCAB is associated with significantly higher risks of mortality, repeat revascularization, or myocardial infarction during late follow-up when compared to ONCAB. Patients undergoing OPCAB may benefit from reduced risks of stroke and mortality within the first year postoperatively.

摘要

目的

最近的数据表明,与体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(ONCAB)相比,非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(OPCAB)在长期内的死亡率更高。因此,我们在一个大型单中心队列中比较了接受 ONCAB 与 OPCAB 的患者的长期生存和发病率。

方法

分析了 2009 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月期间接受择期/紧急冠状动脉旁路移植术的 8981 例患者。患者分为 2 组(OPCAB n=6649/ONCAB n=2332)。主要终点为全因死亡率。次要终点包括再次血运重建、卒中和心肌梗死。为了调整潜在的选择偏倚,采用 1:1 最近邻居倾向评分(PS)匹配,得到 1857 对匹配。此外,在整个研究队列中应用多变量和 PS 调整的 Cox 回归分析进行敏感性分析。

结果

在 PS 匹配的队列中,两组患者的 10 年死亡率相似[OPCAB 组为 36.4%,ONCAB 组为 35.8%:风险比(HR)0.99,95%置信区间(CI)0.87-1.12;P=0.84]。虽然次要终点的 10 年结局无显著差异,但 OPCAB 组的卒中风险(OPCAB 组 1.50%,ONCAB 组 2.8%:HR 0.51,95%CI 0.32-0.83;P=0.006)和死亡率(OPCAB 组 3.1%,ONCAB 组 4.8%:HR 0.65,95%CI 0.47-0.91;P=0.011)在 1 年时较低。在多变量和 PS 调整的模型中,10 年死亡率无显著差异(OPCAB 组为 34.1%,ONCAB 组为 35.7%:HR 0.97,95%CI 0.87-1.08;P=0.59 和 HR 1.01,95%CI 0.90-1.13;P=0.91)。

结论

数据并未表明择期/紧急 OPCAB 与 ONCAB 相比,在晚期随访期间死亡率、再次血运重建或心肌梗死的风险显著增加。接受 OPCAB 的患者可能在术后 1 年内受益于降低的卒中风险和死亡率。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d43e/8632741/d74af0e822ab/ivab179f5.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验