• 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

女性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术的长期预后:一项荟萃分析

Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in women, a meta-analysis.

作者信息

Pérez-Camargo Daniel, Campelos-Fernández Paula, Travieso Alejandro, Montero-Cruces Lourdes, Carnero-Alcázar Manuel, Olmos-Blanco Carmen, Cobiella-Carnicer Javier, Álvarez-Arcaya Arantzazu, Reguillo-Lacruz Fernando, Maroto-Castellanos Luis C

机构信息

Cardiac Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Calle Martin Lagos S/N, Madrid, 28040, Spain.

The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024 Dec 20;19(1):666. doi: 10.1186/s13019-024-03167-y.

DOI:10.1186/s13019-024-03167-y
PMID:39707512
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11660439/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite the advances in the last decades for treatment of ischemic heart disease, women continue to experience poorer prognosis than men and currently, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in women.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of stable ischemic heart disease in women.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing PCI with drug-eluting stents with CABG. The primary outcome were the composite outcomes of death, stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) and death, stroke, MI or repeat revascularization. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcomes. Pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated in a fixed- effects meta-analysis using the inverse of variance method. Risk of bias and sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

Six multicenter, RCTs were included after eligibility assessment. Median follow-up was 6.25 years (IQR: 5- 2.5). A significant benefit for CABG over PCI was observed for the primary composite outcomes of death, stroke, MI (HR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.01-1.52; p = 0.037) and death, stroke, MI or repeat revascularization (HR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.25-2.03; p < 0.000).

CONCLUSION

In the present study-level metanalysis, CABG is associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events than PCI at long term follow-up in women.

摘要

背景

尽管在过去几十年中缺血性心脏病的治疗取得了进展,但女性的预后仍比男性差,目前,关于女性最佳血运重建策略的知识存在差距。

目的

比较经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗女性稳定型缺血性心脏病的长期疗效。

方法

进行了一项系统检索,包括比较PCI与药物洗脱支架与CABG的随机临床试验(RCT)。主要结局是死亡、中风或心肌梗死(MI)以及死亡、中风、MI或再次血运重建的复合结局。次要结局包括主要结局的各个组成部分。使用方差倒数法在固定效应荟萃分析中计算合并风险比及95%置信区间。还进行了偏倚风险和敏感性分析。

结果

经过资格评估后纳入了6项多中心RCT。中位随访时间为6.25年(四分位间距:5 - 2.5)。对于死亡、中风、MI的主要复合结局(HR = 1.24;95% CI 1.01 - 1.52;p = 0.037)以及死亡、中风、MI或再次血运重建(HR = 1.60;95% CI 1.25 - 2.03;p < 0.000),观察到CABG比PCI有显著益处。

结论

在本研究水平的荟萃分析中,在女性长期随访中,CABG与主要不良心血管事件风险低于PCI相关。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/de619f8b8ffe/13019_2024_3167_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/db9fa65848b7/13019_2024_3167_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/5c620a84476c/13019_2024_3167_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/23b89ea3b489/13019_2024_3167_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/5f304967e09c/13019_2024_3167_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/de619f8b8ffe/13019_2024_3167_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/db9fa65848b7/13019_2024_3167_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/5c620a84476c/13019_2024_3167_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/23b89ea3b489/13019_2024_3167_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/5f304967e09c/13019_2024_3167_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2603/11660439/de619f8b8ffe/13019_2024_3167_Fig5_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in women, a meta-analysis.女性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术的长期预后:一项荟萃分析
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024 Dec 20;19(1):666. doi: 10.1186/s13019-024-03167-y.
2
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.
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
[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
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.
6
Drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left-main coronary artery disease.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
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Mar 1;91(4):697-709. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27235. Epub 2017 Aug 11.
7
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Disease With and Without Diabetes: Findings From a Pooled Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials.伴有或不伴有糖尿病的左主干病变患者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4项随机临床试验汇总分析的结果
Circulation. 2024 Apr 23;149(17):1328-1338. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.065571. Epub 2024 Mar 11.
8
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.
9
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.
10
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.药物洗脱支架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随机对照试验的Meta分析
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Jun 15;119(12):1942-1948. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.03.019. Epub 2017 Mar 29.

本文引用的文献

1
Applied coronary physiology for planning and guidance of percutaneous coronary interventions. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the European Society of Cardiology.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的应用冠状动脉生理学:欧洲心脏病学会欧洲经皮心血管介入协会(EAPCI)的临床共识声明。
EuroIntervention. 2023 Aug 21;19(6):464-481. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00194.
2
Current concepts in coronary artery revascularisation.目前的冠状动脉血运重建概念。
Lancet. 2023 May 13;401(10388):1611-1628. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00459-2. Epub 2023 Apr 27.
3
Intravascular Imaging-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex PCI.
血管内影像学指导或血管造影指导下的复杂 PCI。
N Engl J Med. 2023 May 4;388(18):1668-1679. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2216607. Epub 2023 Mar 5.
4
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association.《心脏病与卒中统计数据-2023 更新:美国心脏协会报告》。
Circulation. 2023 Feb 21;147(8):e93-e621. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001123. Epub 2023 Jan 25.
5
Prognostic Value of Sex After Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease: Extended PRECOMBAT Study.左主干冠状动脉疾病血运重建术后性别的预后价值:PRECOMBAT扩展研究
JACC Asia. 2021 Nov 9;2(1):19-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jacasi.2021.08.009. eCollection 2022 Feb.
6
Radial artery versus saphenous vein versus right internal thoracic artery for coronary artery bypass grafting.桡动脉与隐静脉和右内乳动脉在冠状动脉旁路移植术中的应用比较。
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022 Jun 15;62(1). doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezac345.
7
2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: 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: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。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Jan 18;79(2):e21-e129. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006. Epub 2021 Dec 9.
8
Conduits' Biology Regulates the Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.血管移植物生物学特性调控冠状动脉旁路移植术的预后。
JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2021 Apr 27;6(4):388-396. doi: 10.1016/j.jacbts.2020.11.015. eCollection 2021 Apr.
9
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.
10
Sex Differences in All-Cause Mortality in the Decade Following Complex Coronary Revascularization.复杂冠状动脉血运重建后十年全因死亡率的性别差异。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 25;76(8):889-899. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.066.