Jones R H, Kesler K, Phillips H R, Mark D B, Smith P K, Nelson C L, Newman M F, Reves J G, Anderson R W, Califf R M
Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996 May;111(5):1013-25. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5223(96)70378-1.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term survival benefits of bypass surgery and angioplasty versus medical therapy in 9263 patients at Duke University Medical Center between 1984 and 1990 with coronary artery disease confirmed by cardiac catheterization to involve one, two, or three vessels. Clinical data were prospectively entered into an established cardiovascular database, and annual follow-up was 97% complete for a mean interval of 5.3 years and a maximal interval of 10 years. Outcomes were analyzed with the Coronary Artery Surgery Study "method A" to define patient groups treated by medicine (n = 2449), angioplasty (n = 2924), or bypass surgery (n = 3890). Differences among treatment groups in baseline characteristics were adjusted by Cox proportional hazard models. The anatomic severity of coronary artery stenosis best defined survival benefit from bypass surgery and angioplasty versus medical treatment. One or both interventional treatments provided better long-term survival than did medical treatment for all levels of disease severity. All patients with single-vessel disease, except those with at least 95% proximal left anterior descending stenosis, benefited from angioplasty versus bypass. All patients with three-vessel disease and those two-vessel patients with > or = 95% proximal left anterior descending stenosis benefited from bypass surgery versus angioplasty. All other patients with two-vessel disease and those with > or = 95% proximal left anterior descending stenosis only had similar survival with either interventional treatment. The absolute survival benefit was greatest for patients with severe three-vessel disease treated with bypass surgery.
本研究的目的是评估1984年至1990年间在杜克大学医学中心的9263例经心导管检查确诊为单支、双支或三支冠状动脉疾病的患者中,搭桥手术和血管成形术相对于药物治疗的长期生存获益情况。临床数据被前瞻性地录入一个已建立的心血管数据库,平均随访间隔为5.3年,最大随访间隔为10年,年度随访完成率为97%。采用冠状动脉外科研究“方法A”分析结果,以确定接受药物治疗(n = 2449)、血管成形术(n = 2924)或搭桥手术(n = 3890)的患者组。通过Cox比例风险模型调整治疗组之间基线特征的差异。冠状动脉狭窄的解剖严重程度最能明确搭桥手术和血管成形术相对于药物治疗的生存获益情况。对于所有疾病严重程度水平,一种或两种介入治疗均比药物治疗提供更好的长期生存。所有单支血管疾病患者,除了那些左前降支近端狭窄至少95%的患者,血管成形术相对于搭桥手术更有益。所有三支血管疾病患者以及那些左前降支近端狭窄≥95%的双支血管疾病患者,搭桥手术相对于血管成形术更有益。所有其他双支血管疾病患者以及那些仅左前降支近端狭窄≥95%的患者,两种介入治疗的生存情况相似。接受搭桥手术治疗的严重三支血管疾病患者的绝对生存获益最大。