Vassilikos V P, Lim R, Kreidieh I, Nathan A W, Edmondson S J, Rees G M, Banim S O, Dymond D S
Cardiology Department, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
Coron Artery Dis. 1997 Nov-Dec;8(11-12):705-9. doi: 10.1097/00019501-199711000-00006.
Elderly patients with ischaemic heart disease are often treated more conservatively and for longer than younger patients, but this strategy may result in subsequent invasive intervention of more advanced and higher risk coronary disease.
We performed a retrospective analysis of 109 patients aged > or = 70 years (mean age 74 years, 66% men), who presented with angina refractory to maximal medical treatment or unstable angina over a 2-year period (1988-1990), to compare the relative risks and benefits of myocardial revascularisation [coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA)] in this higher-risk age group.
Sixty patients underwent CABG and 49 patients PTCA. There were eight periprocedural deaths in total (six in the CABG group, and two in the PTCA group, P = 0.29). Six patients in the CABG group suffered a cerebrovascular accident (two fatal). Acute Q-wave myocardial infarction occurred in one patient in the CABG group and in two patients in the PTCA group. The length of hospital stay was longer for the CABG group (CABG group 11.4 +/- 5.4 days, range 7-30 days, PTCA group 7.4 +/- 7.6 days, range 1-39 days, P = 0.01). Outcome was assessed using the major cardiac event rate (MACE; i.e. the rate of death, myocardial infarction, repeat CABG or PTCA). The cumulative event-free survival in the CABG group in 1, 2 and 3 years was 87, 85 and 85%, respectively. In contrast, in the PTCA group it was 55, 48 and 48% (P = 0.0001). Age, sex, number of diseased vessels, degree of revascularisation and left ventricular function were not predictive of the recurrence of angina in both groups. Actuarial survival (total mortality, including perioperative mortality) was lower at 1 year in the CABG group due to the higher perioperative mortality, but similar in both groups after the second year (P = 0.62).
Elderly patients with refractory or unstable angina who are revascularised surgically have a better long-term outcome (less frequent event rate of the composite end-point--myocardial infarction, revascularisation procedures and death) compared with those who are revascularised with PTCA. This benefit is been realised after the second year. Total mortality is similar in both groups after the second year. Therefore elderly patients who are fit for surgery should not be denied the benefits of CABG. PTCA may be regarded as a complementary and satisfactory treatment, especially for those whose life expectancy is limited to less than 2 years. The use of stents may improve outcome in the PTCA group and this needs to be evaluated.
患有缺血性心脏病的老年患者通常比年轻患者接受更保守且时间更长的治疗,但这种策略可能会导致随后对更晚期、风险更高的冠状动脉疾病进行侵入性干预。
我们对109例年龄≥70岁(平均年龄74岁,66%为男性)的患者进行了回顾性分析,这些患者在1988 - 1990年的两年期间出现了经最大药物治疗仍难治的心绞痛或不稳定型心绞痛,以比较在这个高风险年龄组中心肌血运重建术[冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)和经皮腔内冠状动脉成形术(PTCA)]的相对风险和益处。
60例患者接受了CABG,49例患者接受了PTCA。围手术期共8例死亡(CABG组6例,PTCA组2例,P = 0.29)。CABG组有6例患者发生脑血管意外(2例致命)。CABG组有1例患者发生急性Q波心肌梗死,PTCA组有2例患者发生。CABG组的住院时间更长(CABG组11.4±5.4天,范围7 - 30天,PTCA组7.4±7.6天,范围1 - 39天,P = 0.01)。使用主要心脏事件发生率(MACE;即死亡、心肌梗死、再次CABG或PTCA的发生率)评估结果。CABG组1年、2年和3年的累积无事件生存率分别为87%、85%和85%。相比之下,PTCA组分别为55%、48%和48%(P = 0.0001)。年龄、性别、病变血管数量、血运重建程度和左心室功能均不能预测两组心绞痛的复发。由于围手术期死亡率较高,CABG组1年时的精算生存率较低,但第二年之后两组相似(P = 0.62)。
与接受PTCA血运重建的老年患者相比,接受手术血运重建的难治性或不稳定型心绞痛老年患者具有更好的长期预后(复合终点——心肌梗死、血运重建手术和死亡的发生率更低)。这种益处从第二年开始显现。第二年之后两组的总死亡率相似。因此,适合手术的老年患者不应被剥夺CABG的益处。PTCA可被视为一种补充性且令人满意的治疗方法,尤其是对于预期寿命不足2年的患者。使用支架可能会改善PTCA组的预后,这需要进行评估。