Suppr超能文献

左主干冠状动脉疾病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术后的结局:东京左主干血管重建策略(TOLERANT)研究

Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in patient with left main coronary artery disease: the TOkai LEft main RevAscularizatioN sTrategy (TOLERANT) study.

作者信息

Limjaroen Thitima, Kinoshita Yoshihisa, Suzuka Yuki, Goto Yoshihiro, Yanagisawa Jyunji, Suzuki Yoriyasu, Kitamura Hideki, Okubo Munenori, Kawase Yoshiaki, Matsuo Hitoshi, Koyama Yutaka, Okawa Yasuhide, Suzuki Takahiko

机构信息

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Toyohashi Heart Center, Aichi, Japan.

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cardiac Center, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, 1873 Rama IV Rd, Pathum Wan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.

出版信息

Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2025 Sep 8. doi: 10.1007/s12928-025-01185-8.

Abstract

The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is still controversial for patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. This multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of LMCA disease patients who underwent PCI or CABG. We reviewed 875 consecutive patients diagnosed with LMCA disease between January 2009 and December 2020 who underwent coronary revascularization by PCI (n = 404) or CABG (n = 471). A one-to-one propensity score matching was employed to control the potential biases. The primary outcome was any major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which were composed of all causes of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Before propensity score matching, both groups significantly differed in essential baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing PCI were significantly older (age 72.4 vs. 70.5 years). They had a better baseline left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 59.1% vs. 55.8%). Moreover, patients in the PCI group had less coronary artery disease burden, such as less frequency of SYNTAX scores ≥ 33 (25.1% vs. 49.0%) and true left main bifurcation disease (18.6% vs. 33.1%). After propensity score analysis, 191 pairs of patients were successfully matched, and the median follow-up time was 4.5 years. A primary outcome event occurred in 8.9% of the patients in the PCI group and 15.2% in the CABG group (HR 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-1.28; P = 0.253). All causes of death were lower in the PCI group than in the CABG group (8.4% vs. 13.6%; P = 0.347), but the difference was insignificant. In PCI and CABG groups, the incidence of cardiovascular death (1.6% vs. 1.1%), myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 1.1%), and stroke (0% vs. 1.6%) were also not significantly different. However, the incidence of any revascularization and hospitalization for heart failure tended to be higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group, but the difference was not significant. In this propensity-matched study, PCI showed a statistically insignificant difference in all causes of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with CABG for the treatment of LMCA disease. Furthermore, PCI showed no statistically significant difference compared to CABG in overall endpoints, including any revascularization.

摘要

对于左主干冠状动脉(LMCA)疾病患者,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的疗效仍存在争议。这项多中心队列研究旨在评估接受PCI或CABG的LMCA疾病患者的临床结局。我们回顾了2009年1月至2020年12月期间连续诊断为LMCA疾病并接受PCI(n = 404)或CABG(n = 471)进行冠状动脉血运重建的875例患者。采用一对一倾向评分匹配来控制潜在偏倚。主要结局是任何主要不良心脏事件(MACE),包括所有死因、心肌梗死或中风。在倾向评分匹配之前,两组在基本基线特征上有显著差异。接受PCI的患者年龄显著更大(72.4岁对70.5岁)。他们的基线左心室功能更好(左心室射血分数(LVEF)59.1%对55.8%)。此外,PCI组患者的冠状动脉疾病负担较轻,例如SYNTAX评分≥33的频率较低(25.1%对49.0%)以及真性左主干分叉病变较少(18.6%对33.1%)。经过倾向评分分析,成功匹配了191对患者,中位随访时间为4.5年。PCI组8.9%的患者发生了主要结局事件,CABG组为15.2%(风险比0.70;95%置信区间[CI] 0.38 - 1.28;P = 0.253)。PCI组的所有死因均低于CABG组(8.4%对13.6%;P = 0.347),但差异不显著。在PCI组和CABG组中,心血管死亡(1.6%对1.1%)、心肌梗死(1.1%对1.1%)和中风(0%对1.6%)的发生率也无显著差异。然而,PCI组再次血运重建和因心力衰竭住院的发生率倾向于高于CABG组,但差异不显著。在这项倾向匹配研究中,对于LMCA疾病的治疗,PCI在所有死因、心肌梗死或中风方面与CABG相比显示出无统计学意义的差异。此外,与CABG相比,PCI在包括任何再次血运重建在内的总体终点方面也没有显示出统计学上的显著差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验