• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

经皮介入治疗或旁路手术后左主干血运重建的结果。

Outcomes of Left Main Revascularization after Percutaneous Intervention or Bypass Surgery.

机构信息

Medical Sciences Departement, Cardiology Unit, ASST Bergamo Est, Bolognini Hospital, Seriate, Bergamo, Italy.

Division of Interventional Cardiology, Cardiothoracovascular Department, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.

出版信息

J Interv Cardiol. 2022 Apr 12;2022:6496777. doi: 10.1155/2022/6496777. eCollection 2022.

DOI:10.1155/2022/6496777
PMID:35494423
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9019449/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study is aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) treatment with contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a "real-world" population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 558 consecutive patients with ULMCAD (mean age 71 ± 9 years, male gender 81%) undergoing PCI or CABG were compared. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. Diabetes was present in 29% and acute coronary syndrome in 56%; mean EuroSCORE was 11 ± 8. High coronary complexity (SYNTAX score >32) was present in 50% of patients. The primary composite endpoint was similar after PCI and CABG up to 4 years (15.5 ± 3.1% vs. 17.1 ± 2.6%; =0.585). The primary end point was also comparable in a two propensity score matched cohorts. Ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequently needed in PCI than in CABG (5.5% vs. 1.5%; =0.010). By multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus (HR 2.00; =0.003) and EuroSCORE (HR 3.71; < 0.001) were the only independent predictors associated with long-term outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In a "real-world" population with ULMCAD, a contemporary revascularization strategy by PCI or CABG showed similar long-term clinical outcome regardless of the coronary complexity.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较无保护左主干冠状动脉疾病(ULMCAD)经当代经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)或冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗的临床结局,并在“真实世界”人群中进行比较。

方法和结果

共比较了 558 例连续接受 PCI 或 CABG 治疗的 ULMCAD 患者(平均年龄 71±9 岁,男性 81%)。主要终点是死亡、非致死性心肌梗死或卒中的复合终点。29%的患者合并糖尿病,56%的患者为急性冠状动脉综合征;平均 EuroSCORE 为 11±8。50%的患者存在高冠状动脉复杂性(SYNTAX 评分>32)。PCI 和 CABG 后 4 年内主要复合终点相似(15.5±3.1%比 17.1±2.6%;=0.585)。在两个倾向评分匹配队列中,主要终点也相似。PCI 组缺血驱动的血运重建更为频繁(5.5%比 1.5%;=0.010)。多变量分析显示,糖尿病(HR 2.00;=0.003)和 EuroSCORE(HR 3.71;<0.001)是与长期预后相关的唯一独立预测因素。

结论

在 ULMCAD 的“真实世界”人群中,PCI 或 CABG 的当代血运重建策略无论冠状动脉复杂程度如何,均显示出相似的长期临床结局。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/45f0/9019449/ad2dfebe8301/JITC2022-6496777.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/45f0/9019449/3eb0e8730b66/JITC2022-6496777.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/45f0/9019449/c18844c9f7ab/JITC2022-6496777.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/45f0/9019449/ad2dfebe8301/JITC2022-6496777.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/45f0/9019449/3eb0e8730b66/JITC2022-6496777.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/45f0/9019449/c18844c9f7ab/JITC2022-6496777.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/45f0/9019449/ad2dfebe8301/JITC2022-6496777.003.jpg

相似文献

1
Outcomes of Left Main Revascularization after Percutaneous Intervention or Bypass Surgery.经皮介入治疗或旁路手术后左主干血运重建的结果。
J Interv Cardiol. 2022 Apr 12;2022:6496777. doi: 10.1155/2022/6496777. eCollection 2022.
2
Clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary revascularization vs coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of 6 randomized trials and 4,686 patients.无保护左主干冠状动脉疾病患者经皮冠状动脉血运重建与冠状动脉旁路移植术的临床结局:6项随机试验和4686例患者的荟萃分析
Am Heart J. 2017 Aug;190:54-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.05.005. Epub 2017 May 18.
3
Outcomes After Coronary Stenting or Bypass Surgery for Men and Women With Unprotected Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial.男性和女性无保护左主干病变患者行冠状动脉支架置入术或旁路手术的结果:EXCEL 试验。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jul 9;11(13):1234-1243. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.03.051.
4
[Comparison on the long-term outcomes post percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting for bifurcation lesions in unprotected left main coronary artery].[经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干冠状动脉分叉病变的长期预后比较]
Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi. 2017 Jan 25;45(1):19-25. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-3758.2017.01.005.
5
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graftinge Among Patients with Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in the New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents Era (From the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-3).新一代药物洗脱支架时代无保护左主干病变患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术的比较(来自 CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG 注册研究队列-3)。
Am J Cardiol. 2021 Apr 15;145:47-57. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.12.078. Epub 2021 Jan 15.
6
Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization.冠状动脉血运重建术后卒率比较:外科手术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jul 24;72(4):386-398. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.071.
7
Comparison of long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2).比较经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干冠状动脉疾病患者的长期预后(来自 CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG 注册研究队列-2)。
Am J Cardiol. 2012 Oct 1;110(7):924-32. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.05.022. Epub 2012 Jun 19.
8
Incidence, Characteristics, Predictors, and Outcomes of Repeat Revascularization After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: The SYNTAX Trial at 5 Years.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗和冠状动脉旁路移植术后重复血运重建的发生率、特征、预测因素和结果:SYNTAX 试验 5 年随访。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Dec 26;9(24):2493-2507. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.09.044.
9
Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with three-vessel disease: final five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial.冠状动脉旁路移植术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗对三血管病变患者的比较:SYNTAX 试验的最终五年随访结果。
Eur Heart J. 2014 Oct 21;35(40):2821-30. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu213. Epub 2014 May 21.
10
Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease with Chronic Kidney Disease.冠状动脉旁路移植术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗慢性肾脏病合并左主干冠状动脉疾病的比较
Int Heart J. 2018 Mar 30;59(2):279-285. doi: 10.1536/ihj.17-260. Epub 2018 Mar 20.

引用本文的文献

1
Impacts of the SYNTAX score I, II and SYNTAX score II 2020 on left main revascularization.SYNTAX 评分 I、II 和 SYNTAX 评分 II 2020 对左主干血运重建的影响。
Sci Rep. 2024 Jan 11;14(1):1073. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51192-7.
2
Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Unprotected Left Main Disease: A Single-Center Study.非保护左主干病变经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后的临床特征与结果:一项单中心研究
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Apr 3;13(7):1333. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13071333.
3
Intelligent prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCE) following percutaneous coronary intervention using ANFIS-PSO model.

本文引用的文献

1
Percutaneous vs. surgical revascularization for patients with unprotected left main stenosis: a meta-analysis of 5-year follow-up randomized controlled trials.经皮与手术血运重建治疗无保护左主干狭窄患者的对比:5 年随访随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2021 Sep 16;7(5):476-485. doi: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcaa041.
2
Mortality after drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗左主干冠状动脉疾病的死亡率:随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
Eur Heart J. 2020 Sep 7;41(34):3228-3235. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa135.
3
基于 ANFIS-PSO 模型的经皮冠状动脉介入术后主要不良心血管事件(MACCE)的智能预测。
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022 Aug 30;22(1):389. doi: 10.1186/s12872-022-02825-0.
Impact of SYNTAX Score on 10-Year Outcomes After Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.
SYNTAX 评分对左主干冠状动脉疾病血运重建后 10 年结局的影响。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Feb 10;13(3):361-371. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.10.020.
4
Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干狭窄:NOBLE 随机非劣效性试验的 5 年更新结果。
Lancet. 2020 Jan 18;395(10219):191-199. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32972-1. Epub 2019 Dec 23.
5
Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease.左主干冠状动脉疾病经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术后 5 年的结果。
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381(19):1820-1830. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909406. Epub 2019 Sep 28.
6
Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Revascularization According to the SYNTAX Score.左主干冠状动脉疾病血运重建术根据 SYNTAX 评分。
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Sep;12(9):e008007. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.008007. Epub 2019 Sep 9.
7
Structured minimalist Heart Team - the way forward.结构化极简主义心脏团队——前进之路。
EuroIntervention. 2019 Apr 5;14(18):e1799-e1801. doi: 10.4244/EIJV14I18A314.
8
Bypass Surgery or Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes.左主干病变伴糖尿病患者行旁路移植术或支架置入术治疗的比较
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 9;73(13):1616-1628. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.01.037.
9
Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularisation in patients with three-vessel disease: two-year follow-up of the SYNTAX II study.三血管病变患者最新经皮冠状动脉血运重建术的临床结果:SYNTAX II 研究两年随访结果。
EuroIntervention. 2019 Jun 12;15(3):e244-e252. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00980.
10
Comparison of safety and periprocedural complications of transfemoral aortic valve replacement under local anaesthesia: minimalist versus complete Heart Team.局部麻醉下经股动脉主动脉瓣置换术的安全性和围手术期并发症比较:极简与完整心脏团队。
EuroIntervention. 2019 Apr 5;14(18):e1819-e1825. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00795.