• 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

在有和没有现场心脏手术的中心评估左主干冠状动脉疾病患者的急性冠状动脉综合征。来自波兰急性冠状动脉综合征(PL-ACS)注册研究的数据。

Assessment of acute coronary syndromes among patients with left main coronary artery disease in centers with and without cardiac surgery on-site. Data from PL-ACS registry.

作者信息

Śmiech Karol, Brust Krzysztof, Bujak Kamil, Gąsior Mariusz, Roleder Tomasz

机构信息

Regional Specialist Hospital, Research and Development Center, Wroclaw, Poland.

3rd Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland.

出版信息

Cardiol J. 2025;32(3):278-290. doi: 10.5603/cj.98087. Epub 2025 May 21.

DOI:10.5603/cj.98087
PMID:40396508
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12221318/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The treatment of left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) in acute coronary syndrome patients is challenging in daily clinical practice. Therefore, the question arises whether the clinical outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with LM disease vary between centers with and without cardiac surgery on site.

METHODS

The study is a retrospective analysis of ACS patient outcomes using data from the PL-ACS registry, which is a Polish archive of ACS patients. The following analysis considered patients with LMCAD (n=4000) who were divided into two groups: those treated in the centers with the cardiac surgery department on site (CS group, n=427) and those without (non-CS group, n=3573).

RESULTS

Patients with ACS in non-CS group more often were not qualified for revascularization than patients in CS group (11.7% in the CS group vs. 19.9% in the non-CS group, p<0.001), however, CABG was more common in non-CS group (18.7% in CS group vs. 25.7% in non-CS group, p<0.001). PCI, including angioplasty of LM, was more common in CS-group than non-CS group (38,6% vs. 30,3%, p<0.001). Among patients with ACS in CS group, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were observed with greater frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with LM disease admitted to the centers with CS initially had more risk factors for more intensive hospitalization compared to patients in centers without CS on-site. Clinical outcomes and treatment procedures may differ regarding the availability of CS on-site.

摘要

背景

在日常临床实践中,急性冠状动脉综合征患者左主干冠状动脉疾病(LMCAD)的治疗具有挑战性。因此,问题在于有心脏外科手术和没有心脏外科手术的中心,急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)合并左主干病变患者的临床结局是否存在差异。

方法

本研究是一项对ACS患者结局的回顾性分析,使用来自波兰ACS患者数据库PL-ACS登记处的数据。以下分析纳入了4000例LMCAD患者,分为两组:在有心脏外科的中心接受治疗的患者(CS组,n = 427)和没有心脏外科的中心的患者(非CS组,n = 3573)。

结果

非CS组的ACS患者比CS组的患者更常不符合血运重建条件(CS组为11.7%,非CS组为19.9%,p<0.001),然而,冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)在非CS组更常见(CS组为18.7%,非CS组为25.7%,p<0.001)。包括左主干血管成形术在内的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)在CS组比非CS组更常见(38.6%对30.3%,p<0.001)。在CS组的ACS患者中,主要不良心脏事件(MACE)的发生率更高。

结论

与没有心脏外科的中心的患者相比,入住有心脏外科的中心的左主干病变患者最初有更多危险因素,需要更强化的住院治疗。临床结局和治疗程序可能因是否有心脏外科而有所不同。

相似文献

1
Assessment of acute coronary syndromes among patients with left main coronary artery disease in centers with and without cardiac surgery on-site. Data from PL-ACS registry.在有和没有现场心脏手术的中心评估左主干冠状动脉疾病患者的急性冠状动脉综合征。来自波兰急性冠状动脉综合征(PL-ACS)注册研究的数据。
Cardiol J. 2025;32(3):278-290. doi: 10.5603/cj.98087. Epub 2025 May 21.
2
Indobufen versus aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome.吲哚布芬与阿司匹林用于老年急性冠状动脉综合征患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后的比较
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2025 Jul 7;25(1):495. doi: 10.1186/s12872-025-04843-0.
3
Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data.冠状动脉旁路移植术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗支架置入治疗冠状动脉疾病的死亡率:一项个体患者数据的合并分析。
Lancet. 2018 Mar 10;391(10124):939-948. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30423-9. Epub 2018 Feb 23.
4
Routine Stress Testing After PCI in Patients With and Without Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Secondary Analysis of the POST-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial.稳定性冠心病患者与急性冠状动脉综合征患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后常规负荷试验:POST-PCI 随机临床试验的二次分析。
JAMA Cardiol. 2024 Sep 1;9(9):770-780. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2024.1556.
5
Development of an Acute Coronary Syndrome-Cardiogenic Shock Risk Score for 30-day Mortality From the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR ACS-CS Risk Score).基于维多利亚心脏结局登记处(VCOR ACS-CS风险评分)制定的急性冠状动脉综合征-心源性休克30天死亡率风险评分
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Apr 23. doi: 10.1002/ccd.31540.
6
Efficacy and Safety of Excimer Laser Coronary Atherectomy in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Real-World Evidence From a Propensity-Adjusted Analysis.准分子激光冠状动脉斑块旋切术治疗急性冠状动脉综合征的疗效与安全性:倾向评分调整分析的真实世界证据
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Jul;106(1):359-366. doi: 10.1002/ccd.31557. Epub 2025 Apr 24.
7
Outcomes of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in patients with acute coronary syndromes.新发心房颤动的急性冠脉综合征患者的结局。
EuroIntervention. 2024 Aug 19;20(16):996-1007. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-23-01049.
8
FFR-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Diabetes.糖尿病患者中,基于血流储备分数(FFR)指导的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术的比较
JAMA Cardiol. 2025 Jun 1;10(6):603-608. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0095.
9
Coronary artery stents: a rapid systematic review and economic evaluation.冠状动脉支架:一项快速系统评价与经济学评估
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Sep;8(35):iii-iv, 1-242. doi: 10.3310/hta8350.
10
Clopidogrel-Proton Pump Inhibitor Drug-Drug Interaction and Risk of Adverse Clinical Outcomes Among PCI-Treated ACS Patients: A Meta-analysis.氯吡格雷-质子泵抑制剂药物相互作用与 PCI 治疗 ACS 患者不良临床结局风险:一项荟萃分析。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016 Aug;22(8):939-47. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2016.22.8.939.

本文引用的文献

1
Contemporary Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A State-of-the-art Review.当代左主干经皮冠状动脉介入治疗:最新综述
Interv Cardiol. 2023 May 26;18:e20. doi: 10.15420/icr.2023.02. eCollection 2023.
2
PCI or CABG for left main coronary artery disease: the SWEDEHEART registry.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗左主干冠状动脉疾病:SWEDEHEART 注册研究。
Eur Heart J. 2023 Aug 7;44(30):2833-2842. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad369.
3
Variations in Coronary Revascularization Practices and Their Effect on Long-Term Outcomes.冠状动脉血运重建术的变化及其对长期预后的影响。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Mar;11(5):e022770. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.022770. Epub 2022 Feb 28.
4
Revascularization in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction.左主干冠状动脉疾病伴左心室功能障碍患者的血运重建。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 22;76(12):1395-1406. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.07.047.
5
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.
6
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.
7
'Ten commandments' for the 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization.2018年欧洲心脏病学会/欧洲心胸外科学会心肌血运重建指南的“十诫”
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jan 7;40(2):79-80. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy855.
8
Comments on the 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for Myocardial Revascularization.对2018年欧洲心脏病学会/欧洲心胸外科学会心肌血运重建指南的评论
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2019 Jan;72(1):16-20. doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2018.11.010.
9
10-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.左主干冠状动脉疾病中支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术的 10 年结果比较。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 11;72(23 Pt A):2813-2822. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.012. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
10
2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization.2018年欧洲心脏病学会/欧洲心胸外科学会心肌血运重建指南。
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jan 7;40(2):87-165. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394.