Warisawa Takayuki, Cook Christopher M, Ahmad Yousif, Howard James P, Toya Takumi, Nakayama Masafumi, Kikuta Yuetsu, Kawase Yoshiaki, Nishina Hidetaka, Al-Lamee Rasha, Lerman Amir, Matsuo Hitoshi, Escaned Javier, Davies Justin E
Department of Cardiology, NTT Medical Center Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
The Essex Cardiothroacic Centre, Essex, United Kingdom; Anglia Ruskin University, Essex, United Kingdom.
JACC Adv. 2025 Aug;4(8):102009. doi: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.102009.
Although higher mortality has been reported among women undergoing coronary revascularization for left main coronary artery disease (LMD), it remains unclear whether contemporary approaches can address these disparities.
We investigated sex differences in outcomes using the DEFINE-LM (deferral of coronary revascularization based on instantaneous wave-free ratio evaluation for left main coronary artery disease) registry, in which state-of-the-art management was employed.
We analyzed 314 patients from an international, multicenter registry, where all patients received state-of-the-art management, including physiology-guided revascularization decisions, intracoronary imaging-optimized drug-eluting stent deployment, or surgical procedures with internal thoracic artery grafts, alongside guideline-directed medical therapy. The cohort included 65 (20.7%) women and 249 (79.3%) men. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of the left main stem (LM-TLR). Secondary endpoints were 1) cardiac death or spontaneous LMD-related MI and 2) LM-TLR.
Patient and lesion characteristics were comparable, except for significantly higher age in women (70.1 ± 9.9 vs 67.6 ± 10.3, P = 0.02). At 30 months (Q1-Q3: 17-44), the primary endpoint occurred in 13.8% (9/65) of women and 11.2% (28/249) of men (HR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.54-2.45; P = 0.71). Regarding secondary endpoints, no significant differences were observed in cardiac death or LMD-related MI (1.5% [1/65] vs 1.6% [4/249]; HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.07-5.34; P = 0.66) or LM-TLR (7.7% [5/65] vs 4.0% [10/249]; HR: 1.68; 95% CI: 0.57-4.94; P = 0.35). Cox regression analysis adjusting for age further demonstrated that patient sex was not a significant factor for the primary endpoint (P = 0.98).
State-of-the-art LMD revascularization yielded comparable outcomes for women and men, despite women being significantly older.
尽管有报道称,因左主干冠状动脉疾病(LMD)接受冠状动脉血运重建的女性死亡率较高,但目前尚不清楚当代治疗方法能否解决这些差异。
我们使用DEFINE-LM(基于左主干冠状动脉疾病瞬时无波比值评估的冠状动脉血运重建延期)注册研究调查了结局的性别差异,该研究采用了先进的管理方法。
我们分析了来自一个国际多中心注册研究的314例患者,所有患者均接受了先进的管理,包括生理学指导的血运重建决策、冠状动脉内成像优化的药物洗脱支架置入或使用胸廓内动脉移植物的外科手术,以及指南指导的药物治疗。该队列包括65例(20.7%)女性和249例(79.3%)男性。主要终点是死亡、非致死性心肌梗死(MI)和左主干(LM)因缺血驱动的靶病变血运重建(LM-TLR)的复合终点。次要终点是1)心源性死亡或自发性LMD相关MI和2)LM-TLR。
除女性年龄显著较高外(70.1±9.9岁 vs 67.6±10.3岁,P = 0.02),患者和病变特征具有可比性。在30个月时(四分位间距:17 - 44个月),主要终点在13.8%(9/65)的女性和11.2%(28/249)的男性中发生(风险比:1.15;95%置信区间:0.54 - 2.45;P = 0.71)。关于次要终点,在心源性死亡或LMD相关MI方面未观察到显著差异(1.5%[1/65] vs 1.6%[4/249];风险比:0.62;95%置信区间:0.07 - 5.34;P = 0.66)或LM-TLR方面(7.7%[5/65] vs 4.0%[10/249];风险比:1.68;95%置信区间:0.57 - 4.94;P = 0.35)。对年龄进行校正的Cox回归分析进一步表明,患者性别不是主要终点的显著因素(P = 0.98)。
尽管女性年龄显著较大,但先进的LMD血运重建方法在女性和男性中产生了相似的结局。