• 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

左心室收缩功能障碍患者行冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Jaiswal Vikash, Ang Song Peng, Shrestha Abhigan Babu, Joshi Amey, Ishak Angela, Chia Jia Ee, Kanakannavr Sanchita Suresh, Naz Sidra, Doshi Neel, Nanavaty Dhairya, Gera Asmita, Kumar Vikash, Daneshvar Farshid, Song David, Rajak Kripa

机构信息

JCCR Cardiology Research, Varanasi.

Department of Research, Larkin Community Hospital, South Miami.

出版信息

Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2023 Apr 17;85(6):2849-2857. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000000634. eCollection 2023 Jun.

DOI:10.1097/MS9.0000000000000634
PMID:37363575
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10289746/
Abstract

UNLABELLED

Current guidelines have shown the superiority of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over medical therapy. However, there is a paucity of data evaluating the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).

OBJECTIVE

The authors aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of postpercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and CABG among patients with LVSD.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic literature search using the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Libraries for relevant articles from inception until 30 November 2022. Outcomes were reported as pooled odds ratio (OR), and their corresponding 95% CI using STATA (version 17.0, StataCorp).

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies with 13 324 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age of patients in PCI was 65.3 years, and 64.1 years in the CABG group. The most common comorbidities included: HTN (80 vs. 78%) and DM (49.2 vs. 49%). The mean follow-up duration was 3.75 years. Compared with CABG, the PCI group had higher odds of all-cause mortality (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.31, =0.03), repeat revascularization (OR 3.57, 95% CI 2.56-4.97, <0.001), MI (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.01-3.86, =0.048) while the incidence of cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.98-1.55, =0.07), stroke (OR 0.73 95% CI: 0.51-1.04, =0.08), major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.99-1.87, =0.06), and ventricular tachycardia (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.22-2.86, =0.72) was comparable between both the procedures.

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that CABG is superior to PCI for patients with LVSD. CABG was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, repeat revascularization, and incidence of myocardial infarction compared with PCI in patients with LVSD.

摘要

未标注

当前指南已显示冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)优于药物治疗。然而,评估缺血性左心室收缩功能障碍(LVSD)患者最佳血运重建策略的数据匮乏。

目的

作者旨在评估LVSD患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)和CABG后的临床结局。

方法

作者使用PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆进行系统文献检索,以获取从创刊至2022年11月30日的相关文章。结果报告为合并比值比(OR)及其相应的95%置信区间(CI),使用STATA(版本17.0,StataCorp)软件。

结果

共有10项研究、13324例患者纳入分析。PCI组患者的平均年龄为65.3岁,CABG组为64.1岁。最常见的合并症包括:高血压(80%对78%)和糖尿病(49.2%对49%)。平均随访时间为3.75年。与CABG相比,PCI组全因死亡率(OR 1.15,95% CI 1.01 - 1.31,P = 0.03)重复血运重建(OR 3.57,95% CI 2.56 - 4.97,P < 0.001)、心肌梗死(OR 1.92,95% CI 1.01 - 3.86,P = 0.048)的发生几率更高,而心血管死亡率(OR 1.23,95% CI 0.98 - 1.55,P = 0.07)、中风(OR 0.73,95% CI:0.51 - 1.04,P = 0.08)、主要不良心血管和脑血管事件(OR 1.36,95% CI 0.99 - 1.87,P = 0.06)以及室性心动过速(OR 0.79,95% CI 0.22 - 2.86,P = 0.72)在两种手术之间相当。

结论

这项荟萃分析的结果表明,对于LVSD患者,CABG优于PCI。与LVSD患者的PCI相比,CABG与全因死亡率、重复血运重建和心肌梗死发生率较低相关。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c260/10289746/77e32692a4e9/ms9-85-2849-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c260/10289746/3ddf7c21e417/ms9-85-2849-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c260/10289746/5ec70428d323/ms9-85-2849-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c260/10289746/f0048f9c9dfa/ms9-85-2849-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c260/10289746/77e32692a4e9/ms9-85-2849-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c260/10289746/3ddf7c21e417/ms9-85-2849-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c260/10289746/5ec70428d323/ms9-85-2849-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c260/10289746/f0048f9c9dfa/ms9-85-2849-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c260/10289746/77e32692a4e9/ms9-85-2849-g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.左心室收缩功能障碍患者行冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2023 Apr 17;85(6):2849-2857. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000000634. eCollection 2023 Jun.
2
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction.左心室收缩功能障碍患者行冠状动脉旁路移植术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的比较。
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2021 Jun;35(3):575-585. doi: 10.1007/s10557-020-07063-0. Epub 2020 Sep 9.
3
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗左主干狭窄患者的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Oct 1;2(10):1079-1088. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2895.
4
Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗左主干冠状动脉疾病的比较?一项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Cardiovasc Ther. 2017 Jun;35(3). doi: 10.1111/1755-5922.12260.
5
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus repeat surgical revascularization in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.既往接受冠状动脉旁路移植术患者的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与再次外科血运重建:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
JTCVS Open. 2022 Oct 28;12:177-191. doi: 10.1016/j.xjon.2022.10.006. eCollection 2022 Dec.
6
Long-term follow-up of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.左主干冠状动脉疾病患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术的长期随访:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Sep;98(3):427-433. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29338. Epub 2020 Oct 26.
7
[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.
8
Comparison by meta-analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with a mean age of ≥70 years.对年龄均≥70 岁的患者进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术的荟萃分析比较。
Am J Cardiol. 2013 Sep 1;112(5):615-22. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.04.034. Epub 2013 May 29.
9
Coronary artery bypass graft surgery vs percutaneous interventions in coronary revascularization: a systematic review.冠状动脉旁路移植术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗在冠状动脉血运重建中的比较:一项系统评价。
JAMA. 2013 Nov 20;310(19):2086-95. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281718.
10
Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: an individual patient data meta-analysis.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗联合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比较:一项个体患者数据分析荟萃研究。
Lancet. 2021 Dec 18;398(10318):2247-2257. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02334-5. Epub 2021 Nov 15.

本文引用的文献

1
Early surgery vs conservative management among asymptomatic aortic stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.无症状性主动脉瓣狭窄的早期手术与保守治疗:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2022 Sep 22;43:101125. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101125. eCollection 2022 Dec.
2
Hypovitaminosis D and cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.维生素D缺乏与心血管结局:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2022 Apr 11;40:101019. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101019. eCollection 2022 Jun.
3
2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.
2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI 冠状动脉血运重建指南:执行摘要:美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会联合临床实践指南委员会的报告。
Circulation. 2022 Jan 18;145(3):e4-e17. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001039. Epub 2021 Dec 9.
4
Prognostically relevant periprocedural myocardial injury and infarction associated with percutaneous coronary interventions: a Consensus Document of the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI).经皮冠状动脉介入治疗相关的围术期心肌损伤和梗死的预后相关因素:ESC 心脏细胞生物学工作组和欧洲经皮心血管介入协会(EAPCI)的共识文件。
Eur Heart J. 2021 Jul 15;42(27):2630-2642. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab271.
5
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.PRISMA 2020 声明:系统评价报告的更新指南。
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
6
Association of Radial Artery Graft vs Saphenous Vein Graft With Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术后桡动脉桥与隐静脉桥对患者长期心血管结局的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。
JAMA. 2020 Jul 14;324(2):179-187. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.8228.
7
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗左主干冠状动脉疾病:荟萃分析。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Jan;163(1):94-105.e15. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.04.010. Epub 2020 Apr 15.
8
Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Severely Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗左心室射血分数严重降低患者的长期预后
JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jun 1;5(6):631-641. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0239.
9
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗三血管病变或左主干病变患者:多中心随机对照 SYNTAX 试验 10 年随访结果。
Lancet. 2019 Oct 12;394(10206):1325-1334. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31997-X. Epub 2019 Sep 2.
10
Meta-Analysis Comparing the Risk of Myocardial Infarction Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.多血管病变或左主干病变患者行冠状动脉旁路移植术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后心肌梗死风险的荟萃分析。
Am J Cardiol. 2019 Sep 15;124(6):842-850. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.06.009. Epub 2019 Jun 24.