左主干病变合并慢性肾脏病患者血运重建术的长期预后

目的:探讨左主干病变合并慢性肾脏病(CKD)患者血运重建术的预后.方法:入选北京安贞医院行经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)或者冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗的无保护左主干病变合并慢性肾脏病患者240例,其中PCI组121例,CABG组119例.研究终点为全因死亡、心肌梗死、卒中、再次血运重建.结果:随访时间中位数6.1...     

无保护左主干开口/体部病变患者血运重建术的长期预后

目的:本研究旨在比较无保护左主干开口/体部病变接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)或冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的长期预后。方法:入选2003-01至2009-07北京安贞医院行PCI或CABG治疗的无保护左主干开口/体部病变259例。其中行PCI(仅置入药物洗脱支架)149例(PCI组),行CABG治疗110例(CABG组)。研究终点包括全因死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、卒中、再次血运重建、心原性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点以及主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE,包括心原性死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、卒中及再次血运重建的联合终点)。结果:随访时间中位数7.1年(四分位间距5.3,8.2年),在无保护左主干开口/体部病变人群中,校正前PCI组和CABG组两组间全因死亡(12.7%vs 29.7%;P=0.096)、非致命性心肌梗死(14.8%vs 8.5%;P=0.844)、卒中(9.3%vs 6.3%;P=0.904)、再次血运重建(26.8%vs 19.0%;P=0.234)、心原性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点(18.9%vs20.3%;P=0.224)、MACCE(37.5%vs 34.2%;P=0.946)发生率差异均无统计学意义,校正后结果与校正前趋势相同。结论:在最长达8.2年的随访期内,对于无保护左主干开口/体部病变,PCI和CABG具有相当的有效性和安全性。     

左主干病变不同治疗方法的疗效分析

目的　观察不同治疗方法对冠心病左主干病变患者的近期或远期疗效的影响。方法　对我院 1993年至 1998年期间的 10 5 5例冠心病患者分别进行药物治疗、经皮冠状动脉介入术 (PCI)或冠状动脉旁路移植术 (CABG)治疗 ,于 2 0 0 1年 3至 5月对上述患者进行随访 ,平均随访时间 (3 16±1 2 8)年。观察终点包括死亡、非致死性心肌梗死以及再次行心肌血运重建术 (PCI和CABG)。其中左主干病变为 4 2例 ,男 31例 (79 2 % ) ,女 11例。结果　 4 2例左主干病变采用PCI的占 16 6 7% ,CABG占 38 10 % ,药物治疗占 4 5 2 3%。PCI和CABG两组 (n =2 3) ,随访结果均无死亡和心肌梗死 ,药物治疗组 (n =19)有 3例死亡 ,1例急性心肌梗死 (P <0 0 5 )。PCI组有 1例于术后 2个月因心绞痛复发而复查冠状动脉造影 ,结果显示原病变部位发生再狭窄 ,故再次进行冠状动脉搭桥术。单纯药物治疗组有 1例在随访期间行CABG ,两组间的血运重建率没有差异。结论　冠状动脉血运重建对于左主干病变的患者可提高远期生存率 ,减少终点事件的发生。     

无保护左主干末端病变接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术远期效果评价

目的研究不同血管重建方式对无保护左主干（ULMCA）末端病变患者治疗的效果及预后意义。方法连续收录冠状动脉造影明确诊断为ULMCA末端病变的222例患者临床资料,其中106例置入药物洗脱支架（PCI组）,116例行冠状动脉旁路移植手术（CABG组）,观察两组患者在12个月及3年发生全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、靶血管重建和主要不良心脏事件发生率,研究不同血管重建方式对ULMCA末端病变治疗效果的影响。结果两组患者在12个月期间,主要终点事件如全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死差别无统计学意义（分别为：χ2=1.05,P=0.32和χ2=1.04,P=0.38）,靶血管重建以及主要不良心脏事件发生率差异有统计学意义（分别为：χ2=5.45,P=0.02和χ2=6.63,P=0.01）。累积3年随访,PCI组与CABG组相比全因死亡率降低33%（10.38%比12.07%,χ2=0.47,P=0.45）,但非致死性心肌梗死是后者的1.87倍（2.1%比0,χ2=1.04,P=0.38）。PCI组靶血管重建率是CABG组4.17倍（20.76%比8.62%,χ2=6.63,P〈0.01）,而主要不良心脏事件两组相比差异有统计学意义（33.02%比20.68%,χ2=4.78,P=0.03）。结论 ULMCA末端病变采用PCI或CABG进行血管重建是安全有效的。对解剖结构适合PCI且患者拒绝或不宜行CABG的ULMCA末端病变患者来说,药物洗脱支架PCI术是一种可以选择的替代治疗方案。     

高龄无保护左主干病变患者血运重建术的长期预后

目的:本研究旨在对比经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗高龄(≥65岁)无保护左主干病变(ULMCA)的长期预后。方法:入选2003年1月至2009年7月,北京安贞医院行PCI或CABG治疗的高龄(≥65岁)ULMCA患者427例(210例行PCI置入药物洗脱支架,217例行CABG),研究终点包括全因死亡、心肌梗死、再次血运重建、卒中、心源性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点以及主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE,包括心原性死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、卒中及再次血运重建的联合终点)。Cox比例风险模型用以计算风险比(HR)及95%可信区间(CI),及多因素分析。结果:随访时间7.0(5.2,8.1)年,校正前结果显示,心源性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点发生率CABG组显著高于PCI组(HR=1.544,95%CI:1.003～2.375,P=0.048)。卒中发生率CABG组显著高于PCI组(HR=3.089,95%CI:1.332～7.162,P=0.009)。再次血运重建发生率PCI组显著高于CABG组(HR=0.278,95%CI:0.159～0.486,P0.001)。全因死亡率两组间差异无统计学意义(HR=1.545,95%CI:0.951～2.510,P=0.079)。非致命性心肌梗死发生率两组间差异无统计学意义(HR=0.619,95%CI:0.314～1.222,P=0.167)。MACCE发生率两组间差异无统计学意义(HR=0.770,95%CI:0.550～1.079;P=0.129)。经Cox多因素分析校正后,CABG组心源性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点发生率仍显著高于PCI组(P=0.048),CABG组卒中发生率显著高于PCI组(P=0.011),PCI组MACCE发生率显著高于CABG组(P=0.027),主要由于PCI组较CABG组显著升高的再次血运重建率(P0.001),死亡、心肌梗死经校正后两组间差异无统计学意义。结论:CABG较PCI治疗高龄ULMCA患者的卒中发生率及心源性死亡、卒中、心肌梗死联合终点发生率显著升高,PCI组再次血运重建率显著升高。     

老年无保护左主干病变置人药物洗脱支架与行冠状动脉旁路移植术的预后比较

目的 对比老年无保护左主干病变患者置入药物洗脱支架(DES)和行冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后2年的临床预后.方法 入选2004年1月至2006年6月因无保护左主干病变置入DES或行CABG的老年患者(≥70岁)共295例.随访2年,记录患者发生全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死及靶病变血管重建的情况.结果 共206例患者行CABG,89例患者置入DES.随访2年的累积死亡率CABG组为10.2%,DES组为13.3%,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.428).生存分析表明2年生存率CABG组为89.2%,DES组为86.4%,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.668).2年心肌梗死发生率CABG组为10.1%,DES组为7.8%,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.501).DES组2年内靶病变血管重建的发生率明显高于CABG组(13.5%比4.9%,P=0.015).多因素分析表明,年龄(HR:1.04,95% CI:1.01～1.09,P=0.024)、左心室功能不全(LVEF<30%)(HR:4.97,95%CI:1.22～24.85,P=0.018)以及2型糖尿病(HR:2.22,95%CI:1.31～4.86,P=0.001)均是死亡的独立危险因素.结论 对于≥170岁的老无保护左主干病变患者,行CABG和置入DES后2年的生存率相当,但置入DES的患者靶病变血管重建发生率明显高于行CABG的患者.     

冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者冠状动脉多支病变PCI与CABG术后5年随访

目的比较冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病(冠心病)合并2型糖尿病冠状动脉多支病变患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)置入药物涂层支架(DES)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后远期疗效。方法连续入选2002年12月至2008年12月住院期间的冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者,并成功行择期血运重建的多支冠状动脉病变患者,分为CABG组(n=270),DES组(n=285)。随访5年,从术后30 d开始到5年止结束,随访包括全因死亡、心源性死亡、非致死性卒中、非致死性心肌梗死、心绞痛复发和再次血运重建的主要不良心脑血管事件(MACE)。结果入选患者随访率100%。CABG组与DES组两组间5年全因死亡率(1.11%vs.1.40%)、心源性死亡率(0%vs.0%)、非致死性卒中发生率(2.22%vs.2.81%)无统计学差异(P0.05)。DES组非致死性心肌梗死发生率(3.15%)、心绞痛复发率(17.89%)、再次血运重建率(12.28%)均高于CABG组(分别为1.11,5.56%,0.74%),差异均有统计学意义(P0.05~0.01)。结论多支冠状动脉病变合并2型糖尿病患者CABG与PCI治疗5年生存率无明显差异,但多支冠状动脉病变合并2型糖尿病患者DES支架置入远期心绞痛复发率、再次血运重建率,非致死性心肌梗死发生率高于CABG组。     

无保护左主干病变合并急性冠状动脉综合征介入与手术治疗对比研究

目的:探讨急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)合并无保护左主干病变患者经桡动脉介入治疗(TRI)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)二者的疗效。方法:连续入选2008年3月至2010年12月,于北京安贞医院行经桡动脉介入治疗(n=236)或冠状动脉旁路移植术(n=354)的无保护左主干病变合并ACS患者。对于患者的临床基线特征及冠状动脉病变特征纳入倾向性评分模型进行匹配,得到154对患者。结果:平均随访时间27个月。经过倾向性评分模型进行校正,两组患者的基线资料及病变特征无显著差异。结果显示TRI与CABG两组全因病死率(4.5%vs.6.5%;P=0.454)及心肌梗死发生率(5.2%vs.7.8%;P=0.355)并差异无统计学意义。CABG组患者脑卒中发生率显著增加(零vs.2.6%;P=0.044),而TRI组靶血管重建率(TVR)显著增加(13.0%vs.5.2%;P=0.017)。两组患者复合终点(死亡/心肌梗死/靶血管重建),差异无统计学意义(7.1%vs.12.3%;P=0.124)。结论:对于ACS合并无保护左主干病变患者TRI与CABG的临床复合终点事件风险相似,然而尽管应用药物洗脱支架CABG组患者靶血管重建率仍显著低于介入治疗组。     

介入治疗左主干病变合并肾功能轻度下降患者的预后分析

目的：本研究旨在研究经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)治疗左主干病变合并肾功能轻度下降患者的预后。方法：入选北京安贞医院行PCI治疗左主干病变合并肾小球滤过率(eGFR)>60mL·min^-1·1.73m^-2的患者,分为两组：CKD1期(肾功能正常组)：eGFR>90mL·min^-1·1.73m^-2,CKD2期(肾功能轻度下降组):eGFR在60～89 mL·min^-1·1.73m^-2之间。研究终点包括全因死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合终点、全因死亡、心肌梗死、卒中、再次血运重建。结果：共入选患者801例,CKD1期410例,CKD2期391例,随访时间中位数5.6(4.4,6.8)年,校正前CKD1期和CKD2期两组间不良事件发生率如下：全因死亡/心肌梗死/卒中(7.3%vs.14.8%,P=0.001)、全因死亡(3.2%vs.8.2%,P=0.002)、卒中(1.5%vs.4.1%,P=0.032)、心肌梗死(4.6%vs.6.9%,P=0.202)...     

血运重建史对左室功能减低的患者行冠脉介入治疗预后的影响

目的探讨血运重建史对左室射血分数(LVEF)小于50%的患者再次行经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)术后远期预后的影响。方法 2013年1月至12月在阜外医院行PCI术且LVEF小于50%的患者共549例,分为有血运重建史组和无血运重建史组。比较两组术后2年不良事件的发生率并分析血运重建史与PCI术后不良事件的相关性。结果 243例(44.3%)患者有既往血运重建史。546例(99.5%)患者完成PCI术后2年随访。两组之间的全因死亡、心原性死亡、支架内血栓形成、心肌梗死、再次血运重建、靶血管重建、靶病变重建和主要心血管不良事件(MACE,包括全因死亡、心肌梗死、再次血运重建)的发生率差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。Cox回归分析表明血运重建史不是PCI术后2年不良事件的独立危险因素。全因死亡、心原性死亡的独立危险因素是年龄(P0.05)。再次血运重建、靶血管重建、靶病变重建的独立危险因素为三支病变(P0.05)。亚组分析表明,有冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)史的患者和有PCI史的患者行PCI术后2年的不良事件发生率与无血运重建史的患者的差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论在LVEF小于50%的患者中,既往血运重建史不增加PCI术后远期预后不良的风险。     

Long‐term follow‐up after nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main coronary arteries

Objectives : To evaluate the long‐term outcomes of the selected patients by the local Heart Team to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis and to compare patients considered at low surgical risk versus at high surgical risk for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Background : CABG is recommended in patients with ULMCA stenosis according to the AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines, and there are limited data on the long‐term outcomes in patients selected by the local Heart Team to undergo PCI. Methods : Between 1996 and 2007, 227 patients underwent PCI for ULMCA stenosis based on decision of the local Heart Team and patient's and/or physician's preference. All patients were contacted at 1 year and in November 2008. Results : Long‐term follow‐up was up to 8 years with a mean of 3.9 ± 2.6 years. Overall, the Kaplan–Meier estimate of the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 14.8% at 1 year, 18.3% at 3 years, and 20.9% at 5 years with no events occurring thereafter. Patients considered at low surgical risk for CABG had a significantly lower incidence of cardiac death or MI compared to patients considered at high surgical risk at 8 years (1.4 vs. 16.8%; 1.4 vs. 14.8%, respectively); however, no significant difference was observed for cardiac death, MI, or TLR (18.6 vs. 24.4%). Conclusions : PCI of ULMCA stenosis in patients selected by the Heart Team resulted in good long‐term clinical outcomes with most events occurring within the 1st year. Patients considered at low surgical risk for CABG have a significantly better long‐term survival than patients at high risk for surgery. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

无保护左主干病变血运重建的临床评价

冠脉旁路移植术为无保护左主干病变的首选治疗。随着经皮冠脉介入治疗技术的进步,在有选择的无保护左主干患者中,PCI与CABG的疗效相当。本文对无保护左主干病变几种血运重建方法进行综述。     

冠状动脉旁路移植术和药物支架植入术远期疗效的比较

目的比较冠心病患者非药物治疗手段冠状动脉旁路移植术（CABG）和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）术后的桥血管和支架的再通率。方法CABG术后和药物支架植入术后再次出现心绞痛症状的冠心病患者各40例,其年龄、性别、心肌梗死、高血压、高脂血症、心功能不全、脑卒中、药物治疗病史具有可比性。通过冠状动脉造影术比较两组患者的桥血管和药物支架的效率和寿命的远期效果。结果与行CABG患者的桥血管比较,行PCI患者的药物支架远期狭窄或者闭塞率降低34．3％。与行CABG患者的左乳内动脉（LIMA）桥血管比较,行PCI患者的左前降支的药物支架远期狭窄或者闭塞率降低14．8％。与行CABG患者的左回旋支和右冠状动脉静脉桥血管比较,行PCI患者的左回旋支以及右冠状动脉的药物支架远期狭窄或者闭塞率降低49．8％。结论冠状动脉药物支架植入术的远期通畅率较CABG明显增高,冠状动脉药物支架植入术的药物支架的效率和寿命要优于CABG的桥血管。     

Comparison between coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (the Bologna Registry)

Although great interest exists in the relative efficacy of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, data comparing the 2 strategies are scant. Furthermore, no comparison has ever been performed between CABG and drug-eluting stents in this setting. From January 2002 to June 2005, 154 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis underwent CABG and 157 underwent PCI. Ninety-four patients received a drug-eluting stent in the left main artery. After a median follow-up of 430 days, the rate of mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization was 12.3%, 4.5%, and 2.6%, respectively, in the CABG group and 13.4%, 8.3%, and 25.5%, respectively, in the PCI group (death and myocardial infarction p = NS, target lesion revascularization p = 0.0001). Although patients treated with drug-eluting stents had a 25% relative risk reduction in the rate of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization compared with patients treated with bare stents, event-free survival was still better for patients treated with CABG. In the multivariate analysis, age >or=70 years, New York Heart Association classes III and IV, acute coronary syndromes, and peripheral vascular disease were the only independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, our results have indicated that at long-term follow-up no difference exists in the rate of mortality and myocardial infarction between PCI and CABG for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. However, the rate of target lesion revascularization was higher in the PCI group.     

Bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of unprotected left main disease

Objective

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of de novo unprotected left main disease.

Background

Although CABG is accepted to be standard of care for revascularization of unprotected left main stenosis, PCI is increasingly being used as an alternative primary approach.

Methods

We searched for randomized, controlled trials comparing CABG and PCI for the treatment of unprotected left main disease. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization) were analyzed.

Results

The search strategy identified 4 randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 1,611 patients. Follow-up ranged between 1 and 2 years. There were no significant differences in the risk of death or myocardial infarction between the two treatment modalities. While the risk of stroke was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI (risk ratio (RR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.69, p?=?0.007), the risk of repeat revascularization was higher among patients undergoing PCI (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.43–2.61, p?<?0.001). No relevant statistical heterogeneity across studies could be found.

Conclusion

In this largest series of randomized patients with unprotected left main stenosis to date, the risk of death and myocardial infarction was comparable between CABG and PCI. However, patients undergoing CABG had a higher risk of stroke, whereas patients undergoing PCI were at a higher risk for repeat revascularization.     

Is percutaneous coronary intervention as effective as bypass surgery in left main stem coronary artery stenosis?

Recent advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have rekindled interest in this treatment modality also in the setting of unprotected left main stenosis. Randomized trials reported a similar risk of death or myocardial infarction between PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, rates of stroke were higher after CABG, whereas patients undergoing PCI had a higher risk of repeat revascularization. Although CABG remains the standard of care for left main stenosis in current guideline recommendations, PCI is considered a reasonable alternative in patients with low to intermediate anatomical complexity and at increased surgical risk. An interdisciplinary assessment is indispensable in order to choose the best treatment option for each individual patient.     

无保护左主干病变冠状动脉搭桥术与雷帕霉素洗脱支架治疗的对比研究

目的:回顾性分析无保护左主干病变患者使用雷帕霉素洗脱支架(DES)的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与冠状动脉旁路移植手术(CABG)治疗的中、远期疗效,并探讨应用SYNTAX SCORE来评估病变风险与临床事件的相关性。方法:本研究回顾性收集了176例无保护左主干病变患者,其中CABG组80例,PCI-DES组96例。收集患者的基本情况、左主干病变特点及SYNTAX评分、CABG和PCI手术情况,随访患者术后3年的主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)的发生率。结果:术后3年随访,PCI-DES组与CABG组的MACCE发生率及无MACCE生存率比较差异无统计学意义,但PCI组靶血管再次血运重建率(TVR)明显高于CABG组(P<0.05)。用SYNTAX SCORE把PCI-DES和CABG两组患者分为高积分组(≥30.0)和低积分组(<30.0):高积分组,术后3年PCI-DES亚组MACCE事件发生率高于CABG亚组(23.53%∶18.05%,P<0.05),无MACCE事件生存率低于CABG亚组(51.47%∶70.83%,P<0.05)。低积分组,术后3年MACCE事件发生率CABG亚组高于PCI-DES亚组(12.50%∶7.14%,P>0.05),而无MACCE事件生存率低于PCI-DES亚组(75.00%∶82.14%,P<0.05)。结论:PCI-DES与CABG治疗无保护左主干病变患者总体疗效相似。用SYNTAX SCORE指导无保护左主干病变血管重建方式的选择有重要价值,但在不同的患者人群中,仍应结合临床特征和冠状动脉病变特点选择恰当的血运重建术。     

Predictors of long‐term outcomes after bypass grafting versus drug‐eluting stent implantation for left main or multivessel coronary artery disease

Background : We assessed predictors of long‐term outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus those after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) in 3,230 patients with left main or multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and Results : Data were pooled from the BEST, PRECOMBAT, and SYNTAX trials. Age, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, left ventricular dysfunction, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) were common predictors of all‐cause mortality. Diabetes mellitus, previous myocardial infarction (MI), and SYNTAX score were independent predictors of all‐cause mortality in the PCI group, but not in the CABG group. In the CABG group, age was the only risk factor for MI; left ventricular dysfunction, hypertension, and PAD were risk factors for stroke. On the other hand, in the PCI group, incomplete revascularization and previous MI were risk factors for MI; age and previous stroke for stroke. In addition, chronic kidney disease significantly correlated with a composite outcome of death, MI, or stroke in the CABG group, and incomplete revascularization and previous MI in the PCI group. Conclusions : Simple clinical variables and SYNTAX score differentially predict long‐term outcomes after CABG versus those after PCI with DES for left main or multivessel CAD. Those predictors might help to guide the choice of revascularization strategy. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Validating the EXCEL hypothesis: A propensity score matched 3‐year comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft in left main patients with SYNTAX score ≤32

Objectives : The aim of this study is to verify the study hypothesis of the EXCEL trial by comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in an EXCEL‐like population of patients. Background : The upcoming EXCEL trial will test the hypothesis that left main patients with SYNTAX score ≤32 experience similar rates of 3‐year death, myocardial infarction (MI), or cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) following revascularization by PCI or CABG. Methods : We compared the 3‐year rates of death/MI/CVA and death/MI/CVA/target vessel revascularization (MACCE) in 556 patients with left main disease and SYNTAX score ≤32 undergoing PCI (n = 285) or CABG (n = 271). To account for confounders, outcome parameters underwent extensive statistical adjustment. Results : The unadjusted incidence of death/MI/CVA was similar between PCI and CABG (12.7% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.892), while MACCE were higher in the PCI group compared to the CABG group (27.0% vs. 11.8%, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching, PCI was not associated with a significant increase in the rate of death/MI/CVA (11.8% vs. 10.7%, P = 0.948), while MACCE were more frequently noted among patients treated with PCI (28.8% vs. 14.1%, P = 0.002). Adjustment by means of SYNTAX score and EUROSCORE, covariates with and without propensity score, and propensity score alone did not change significantly these findings. Conclusions : In an EXCEL‐like cohort of patients with left main disease, there seems to be a clinical equipoise between PCI and CABG in terms of death/MI/CVA. However, even in patients with SYNTAX score ≤32, CABG is superior to PCI when target vessel revascularization is included in the combined endpoint. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of left main coronary stenosis: a feasibility study

Objective : To determine the feasibility of a hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) approach for the treatment of left main (LM) coronary artery stenosis. Background : The recommended therapy for significant LM stenosis is coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected LM lesions is reserved for patients at high risk for complications with CABG. HCR in LM disease has not been studied. Methods : Twenty‐two consecutive patients with LM stenosis >70% underwent staged HCR. Following a robotic or thoracoscopic‐assisted minimally invasive left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to left anterior descending artery (LAD) coronary bypass, PCI of the LM, and non‐LAD targets was performed after angiographic confirmation of LIMA patency. Intravascular ultrasound confirmed optimal stent deployment. Thirty‐day adverse outcomes and long term follow up was obtained. Results : In the 22 patients with LM lesions, 6 were ostial, 5 mid, and 11 distal. LIMA patency was FitzGibbon A in all cases. LM stenting was successful in all patients with drug‐eluting stents (DES) placed in 21 of 22 cases. Three patients underwent stent implantation in the right coronary artery. There were no 30‐day major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events. At a mean of 38.8 ± 22 months postprocedure, 21 patients were alive without reintervention; one death occurred at 454 days. Conclusions : HCR for LM coronary disease is a feasible alternative to CABG and unprotected LM PCI. This approach combines the long‐term durability of a LIMA‐LAD bypass with the less invasive option of PCI in non‐LAD targets with DES. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.