Suppr超能文献

非保护左主干冠状动脉疾病的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术:一项高容量单中心研究的1年结果

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Non-Protected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: 1-Year Outcomes in a High Volume Single Center Study.

作者信息

Moț Ștefan Dan Cezar, Șerban Adela Mihaela, Beyer Ruxandra Ștefana, Cocoi Mihai, Iuga Horia, Mureșan Ioana Dănuța, Cozma Simona, Dădârlat-Pop Alexandra, Tomoaia Raluca, Pop Dana

机构信息

Cardiology Department, Heart Institute "N. Stăncioiu", 400001 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

5th Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, "Iuliu Hațieganu" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

出版信息

Life (Basel). 2022 Feb 27;12(3):347. doi: 10.3390/life12030347.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

There is clear evidence of a significant reduction in all major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE) by coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in left main coronary artery stenosis (LMCS), but revascularization by percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI) shows an increasingly important role as an alternative to CABG. Several recent trials aiming to test the difference in mortality between the two types of revascularization found conflicting data. The aim of this study is to determine whether PCI is non-inferior to CABG with respect to the occurrence of MACE at 1 year in patients with significant LMCS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 296 patients with chronic or acute coronary syndromes and significant LM stenosis. The angiography that recommended the revascularization procedure was used for the calculation of the Syntax II score, in order to classify the patients as low-, intermediate- or high-risk. Low- and high-risk patients were revascularized with either PCI or CABG, according to current guidelines, and were included in the subgroup S1. The second subgroup (S0) included intermediate-risk patients (Syntax II score 23-32), in whom the type of revascularization was chosen depending on the decision of the heart team or the patient preference. Patients were monitored according to the chosen mode of revascularization-PCI or CABG. LM revascularization was performed in all the patients. Clinical endpoints included cardiac death, myocardial infarction, need for revascularization and stroke. Patients were evaluated at 1 year after revascularization. Event rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis in time to the first event.

RESULTS

At 1-year follow-up, a primary endpoint occurred in 35/95 patients in the CABG group and 37/201 in the PCI group. There were no significant differences between the 2 treatment strategies in the 1-year components of the end-point. However, a tendency to higher occurrence of cardiac death (HR = 1.48 CI (0.55-3.9), = 0.43), necessity of repeat revascularization (HR = 1.7, CI (0.81-3.6), = 0.16) and stroke (HR = 1.52, CI (1.15-2.93), = 0.58) were present after CABG. Contrariwise, although without statistical significance, MI was more frequent after PCI (HR = 2, CI (0.78-5.2), = 0.14). The Kaplan-Meier estimates in subgroups demonstrated the same tendency to higher rates for cardiac death, repeat revascularization and stroke after CABG, and higher rates of MI after PCI. Although without statistical significance, patients with an intermediate-risk showed a slightly lower risk of MACE after PCI than CABG. With the exception of dyslipidemia and gender, other cardiovascular risk factors were in favor of CABG (CKD, obesity).

CONCLUSION

In patients with LMCS, PCI with drug-eluting stents was non-inferior to CABG with respect to the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization and stroke at 1 year, even in patients with intermediate Syntax II risk score.

摘要

引言

有明确证据表明,冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)可显著降低左主干冠状动脉狭窄(LMCS)患者所有主要心血管不良事件(MACE)的发生率,但经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)作为CABG的替代方法,其血管重建作用日益重要。最近几项旨在测试两种血管重建方式死亡率差异的试验得出了相互矛盾的数据。本研究的目的是确定在有显著LMCS的患者中,PCI在1年时MACE发生率方面是否不劣于CABG。

材料与方法

我们前瞻性纳入了296例慢性或急性冠状动脉综合征且有显著LM狭窄的患者。为了将患者分类为低、中或高风险,采用推荐血管重建手术的血管造影来计算Syntax II评分。根据当前指南,低风险和高风险患者采用PCI或CABG进行血管重建,并纳入S1亚组。第二个亚组(S0)包括中风险患者(Syntax II评分为23 - 32),其血管重建类型根据心脏团队的决定或患者偏好选择。根据所选的血管重建方式(PCI或CABG)对患者进行监测。所有患者均进行LM血管重建。临床终点包括心源性死亡、心肌梗死、再次血管重建需求和中风。在血管重建术后1年对患者进行评估。使用Kaplan-Meier分析估计至首次事件发生时间的事件发生率。

结果

在1年随访时,CABG组95例患者中有35例发生主要终点事件,PCI组201例患者中有37例发生。在终点事件的1年各组成部分中,两种治疗策略之间无显著差异。然而,CABG后存在心源性死亡(HR = 1.48,CI(0.55 - 3.9),P = 0.43)、再次血管重建必要性(HR = 1.7,CI(0.81 - 3.6),P = 0.16)和中风(HR = 1.52,CI(1.15 - 2.93),P = 0.58)发生率更高的趋势。相反,尽管无统计学意义,但PCI后心肌梗死更常见(HR = 2,CI(0.78 - 5.),P = 0.14)。亚组的Kaplan-Meier估计显示,CABG后心源性死亡、再次血管重建和中风发生率更高,PCI后心肌梗死发生率更高的趋势相同。尽管无统计学意义,但中风险患者PCI后MACE风险略低于CABG。除血脂异常和性别外,其他心血管危险因素有利于CABG(慢性肾脏病、肥胖)。

结论

在LMCS患者中,即使是Syntax II风险评分中等的患者,1年时药物洗脱支架PCI在心源性死亡、心肌梗死、再次血管重建和中风的综合指标方面不劣于CABG。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1b65/8953531/56db0b660a58/life-12-00347-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验