不同冠状动脉重建术治疗非ST段抬高急性心肌梗死的效果

目的比较经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗非ST段抬高急性心肌梗死(NSTEAMI)的临床效果。方法98例NSTEAMI患者入院后行PCI和CABG治疗,进行12个月的随访,比较两组患者的一般临床资料、冠状动脉造影血管病变情况及心源性病死率、再发心绞痛以及再入院率和再次血运重建术率。结果CABG组三支和完全闭塞冠状动脉病变例数明显高于PCI组(87.23%vs.47.06%,87.23%vs.23.53%,P<0.05),随访12个月两组患者在心源性病死率、合并心律失常和再次血管重建术发生率(P>0.05)差异无统计学意义。而在心绞痛复发和再次住院率经皮冠状动脉成形术组高于CABG组(21.57%vs.6.38%,23.52%vs.6.38%,P<0.05)。结论对NSTEAMI患者入院后行PCI与CABG治疗是安全的血运重建的重要手段,应根据患者的具体情况采用合理的血运重建方式,以达到最佳重建冠状动脉血流的结果,改善患者的预后。     

介入治疗冠心病患者冠状动脉搭桥术后再发心绞痛的近期疗效

目的探讨经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)对冠心病(CHD)患者冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)后再发心绞痛的近期疗效。方法 2007年6月至2015年2月选择该院收治行CABG后再发心绞痛患者56例,根据患者是否进行PCI,将其分为PCI组(30例)和优化药物治疗(ODT)组(26例)。随访患者出院3个月后的心脏相关辅助检查结果、疗效,并分析CHD患者CABG后再发心绞痛的影响因素。结果治疗3个月后,PCI组患者肾素活性(PRA)、血管紧张素(AngⅡ)、醛固酮(ALD)、去甲肾上腺素(NE)、肾上腺素(E)、脑钠肽(BNP)及左室舒张内径(LV)水平均显著低于ODT组患者(P0.05);PCI组疗效明显优于ODT组(Z=6.054,P0.05);患者血红蛋白(Hb)水平是胸痛的影响因素(OR=0.018,P0.05)。结论 CHD患者CABG后再发心绞痛与Hb水平有关,采用PCI治疗能够显著降低该患者心脏相关神经内分泌因子的水平,近期疗效优于ODT疗法。     

冠状动脉旁路移植术后糖尿病患者预后的临床研究

目的:探讨冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)术后复发心绞痛的糖尿病患者临床资料和冠状动脉特征。方法:回顾性分析2006~2008年247例CABG术后复发心绞痛接受PCI治疗的临床资料,以是否患糖尿病分组。结果:糖尿病患者术后心绞痛复发率高。餐后血糖及糖化血红蛋白(HbAlc)两组间有显著差异(P0.05)。冠脉造影糖尿病组在自身血管病变,PCI支架类型有显著差异(P0.05)。远期心肌梗死糖尿病组(12%)高于非糖尿病组(5%)(P0.05)。血运重建糖尿病组(22%),非糖尿病组(15%),有显著差异(P0.05)。结论:糖尿病患者CABG术后心绞痛复发率高,病变复杂,远期并发症发生率高,预后差。     

糖尿病并发多支冠状动脉病变患者血管重建两种主要术式比较

目的:比较临床实践中血管重建术式对糖尿病并多支冠状动脉病变患者临床结果的影响。方法:2006年6月~2010年3月,确诊为糖尿病并发多支冠脉病变的冠心病患者226例,非随机行冠状动脉介入治疗（支架术,PCI)和冠脉搭桥术(CABG)对照研究。分析患者随访1年的临床结果。结果:CABG组和PCI组分别入选患者为105例和121例。比较CABG组与PCI组患者的年龄［(63±6)岁 vs.(68±7)岁,P<0.05］和高血压病史(97.1% vs. 89.3%,P<0.05)均有显著性差异,其他的临床特性均无显著性差异。随访1年的临床结果显示,CABG组与PCI组比较再次血管重建（TVR）(1.0% vs. 18.2%,P<0.01)和主要心脑血管事件（MACCE）(14.3% vs. 28.1%,P<0.01)均有显著性差异;而比较非致死性心肌梗死,卒中和死亡则无显著性差异。结论:糖尿病并多支病冠脉变的冠心病患者血管重建时CABG优于PCI。     

冠状动脉杂交术治疗冠状动脉多支病变的中远期临床疗效及安全性

目的对比冠状动脉杂交术与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)治疗冠状动脉多支病变患者中远期临床疗效及安全性。方法采用前瞻性随机对照研究,从2012年1月到2014年6月,选择行冠状动脉造影诊断为冠状动脉多支病变,适宜行冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)及PCI处理的冠心病患者102例,随机分为两组:冠状动脉杂交术组(n=53)和PCI组(n=49),治疗目标为达到最大限度完全血运重建。术后1、3、6、9、12个月及两年随访,术后12个月行冠状动脉造影检查,评估靶血管通畅率及SYNTAX评分,记录患者临床状况及心血管不良事件,评价两组患者两年内心血管不良事件的发生率、生存率。结果冠状动脉杂交术组造影剂用量低于PCI组(P0.001),两组IABP支持、监护室时间、LCX及RCA置入支架数差异无统计学意义(P0.05),冠状动脉杂交术组平均住院时间、总支架长度及术后hs-CRP峰值低于PCI组,冠状动脉杂交术组造影剂肾病、急性心衰、复发心绞痛及术后低血压发生率也低于PCI组(P0.05),两组院内再次心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建、脑血管意外及死亡差异无显著性(P0.05)。术后随访2.4年,平均16.2±11.3个月。随访期间冠状动脉杂交术组再次心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建、急性心衰及复发心绞痛发生率低于PCI组(分别是1.9%比8.2%、1.9%比8.2%、3.8%比12.2%、5.7%比14.3%,P0.05),两组脑血管意外、主要出血事件及死亡差异无显著性;冠状动脉杂交术组两年总死亡率为3.8%,PCI组为4.1%。冠状动脉杂交术组术后1年靶血管通畅率为94.1%,高于PCI组的85.1%,SYNTAX评分低于PCI组(P0.05)。结论与PCI术相比,冠状动脉杂交术可以减少冠状动脉多支病变患者治疗后中远期不良事件,且手术安全性高。     

冠状动脉多支病变完全血运重建是否必须

<正>早先临床研究结果提示,冠状动脉旁路移植术(coronary artery bypass grafting,CABG)治疗冠状动脉多支病变,可有效改善患者的远期预后,包括减少死亡、再梗死,降低再次血管化的风险[1],究其原因可能与CABG能提供更为完全的血运重建有关。然而,在以药物涂层支架为主导的经皮冠状动脉介入(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)治疗时代,完全血运重建是否仍然有益呢?本文将结合最新的临床研究进     

杂交技术在冠状动脉再血管化的研究新进展

<正>冠脉搭桥术(CABG)一直以来是冠脉再血管化的金标准途径,CABG与冠脉支架介入治疗相比最大优势在于其左乳内动脉(LIMA)与左前降支(LAD)的远期通畅率并最终能给病人带来更好的远期效果〔1〕,然而CABG对于非左主干病变血管的效果不确切,可能与大隐静脉具有较低的远期通畅率有关,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)恰好对于这些病变血管有着独特的益处并得到了许多研究的证实。从病人角度来看,PCI术后与     

高龄冠心病患者完全和不完全血运重建对疗效的影响

目的:评价高龄冠心病患者进行完全和不完全血运重建的近期与远期疗效.方法:对2000年1月至2003年3月期间收入我院经冠状动脉造影诊断为冠心病[(即以冠状动脉任何一支血管狭窄≥50%为诊断标准),高龄(年龄≥75岁),并接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI,PCI组)]的患者75例和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG,CABG组)治疗的患者55例.随访6～38个月,平均(17.5±8.8)个月,分别观察冠状动脉血运重建完全与不完全的近期与远期疗效.结果:PCI组和CABG组从近期终点事件发生情况看:血运重建完全者与血运重建不完全者比较,近期死亡、急性心肌梗死和急诊CABG的发生率没有显著性差异(P＞0.05);从远期终点事件发生情况看:血运重建完全者与血运重建不完全者比较,远期死亡、急性心肌梗死和再次血运重建的发生率以及心绞痛复发情况也没有显著性差异(P＞0.05).结论:高龄患者的血运重建治疗虽然难以实现完全的血运重建,但是由于老年人的活动量小,尤其是高龄患者,只需对引起症状的大血管进行血运重建,远期效果良好.     

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。     

冠状动脉旁路移植术后的原位血管介入治疗

目的针对冠状动脉旁路移植术后在原位血管进行介入治疗的疗效研究。方法我中心对2004年4月至2009年4月在我院或外院曾行冠状动脉旁路移植术后因胸闷痛症状反复发作并复查冠状动脉造影及支架植入术的10例患者进行了回顾性分析。将患者分为两组:原位血管介入组;静脉桥血管介入组。结果桥血管PCI组:2例因再次心绞痛发作住院治疗,1例硝酸甘油用量同术前没有明显改变,1例随访1年内未出现心绞痛症状,活动耐量逐渐增加。原位血管PCI组:随访1年期间内无因再发心绞痛再次住院的,其中2例患者门诊随诊心绞痛仍有反复,但硝酸甘油用量同术前相比明显减少服用次数,其余4例患者心绞痛症状缓解明显,硝酸甘油用量明显减少,活动耐量明显增强。结论对冠状动脉旁路移植术后再发心绞痛患者进行介入治疗时,尽可能选择干预原位血管病变。     

Effect of prior revascularization on outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention; NHLBI Dynamic Registry.

AIMS: An increasing number of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have experienced previous revascularization procedures. Their outcome after PCI has seldom been compared to that of patients without prior procedures. This study investigates which elements of prior revascularization affect in-hospital and long-term outcome after PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline characteristics as well as in-hospital and 1-year outcomes were compared in 4010 consecutive patients undergoing PCI in the NHLBI Dynamic Registry, categorized by type of prior procedure. In-hospital mortality was lowest and procedural success highest among patients with prior PCI only. Patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) had higher rates for the combined endpoint of death and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year compared to patients with no prior procedures. However, in multivariate regression analysis adjusting for potential confounders, neither prior PCI nor prior CABG were independent predictors of death or death/MI at 1 year. Patients with prior procedure had higher rates for repeat PCI and patients with prior PCI had higher rates for CABG during the year following the index procedures. These associations persisted after adjustment for potential confounders. Finally, patients with prior procedures had a higher prevalence of angina at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Due to adverse baseline characteristics, patients with prior CABG have higher rates for death/MI during the first year after PCI and both groups of patients with prior procedures have higher revascularization rates. However, only the associations with repeat revascularization persist after adjustment for baseline and procedural factors.     

Is a strategy of intended incomplete percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty revascularization acceptable in nondiabetic patients who are candidates for coronary artery bypass graft surgery? The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI).

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to determine whether a strategy of intended incomplete percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty revascularization (IR) compromises long-term patient outcome. BACKGROUND: Complete angioplasty revascularization (CR) is often not planned nor attempted in patients with multivessel coronary disease, and the extent to which this influences outcome is unclear. METHODS: Before randomization, in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation, all angiograms were assessed for intended CR or IR via angioplasty. Outcomes were compared among patients with IR intended if assigned to angioplasty, randomized to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) versus angioplasty; and within angioplasty patients only, among patients with IR versus CR intended. RESULTS: At 5 years, there was a trend for higher overall (88.6% vs. 84.0%) and cardiac survival (94.5% vs. 92.1%) in CABG versus angioplasty patients with IR intended. The excess mortality in angioplasty patients occurred solely in diabetic subjects; overall and cardiac survival were similar among nondiabetic CABG and angioplasty patients. Freedom from myocardial infarction (MI) at 5 years was higher in nondiabetic CABG versus angioplasty patients (92.4% vs. 85.2%, p = 0.02), vet was similar to the rate observed (85%) in nondiabetic CABG and angioplasty patients with CR intended. Five-year rates of death, cardiac death, repeat revascularization and angina were similar in all angioplasty patients with IR versus CR intended. However, a trend for greater freedom from subsequent CABG was seen in CR patients (70.3% vs. 64.0%, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Intended incomplete angioplasty revascularization in nondiabetic patients with multivessel disease who are candidates for both angioplasty and CABG does not compromise long-term survival; however, subsequent need for CABG may be increased with this strategy. Whether the risk of long-term MI is also increased remains uncertain.     

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.     

Balancing benefit against risk in the choice of therapy for coronary artery disease. Lesson from prospective, randomized, clinical trials of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery

The ageing world population faces a coming pandemic of high-risk coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients with CAD have 3 therapeutic options, which are based on objective clinical outcome: medical therapy and risk factor modification (Medicine), and 2 forms of revascularization, coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). More than 50 large (>100 patients), multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trials (RCT) have compared these treatment options in terms of clinical benefits and patient risks. The randomized trials which demonstrated hard outcome (survival, myocardial infarction, stroke) benefits from statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and thienopyridines have all been completed subsequent to the publication of most Medicine versus revascularization trials. These medical therapies, plus aspirin, beta-blockers, and risk factor modification, should be made available to patients regardless of the decision to revascularize, or the decision by what means (CABG or PCI). This review integrates the information from these trials, comparing the clinical benefits against the risks inherent in the 3 therapeutic options. The results of our review show that: trials of medicine versus revascularization (either CABG or PCI) support the revascularization paradox, in that the patients at highest risk of adverse outcome, from myocardial ischemia, have a hard outcome benefit (survival, MI, or stroke) from revascularization. This paradox, first seen in the Medicine versus CABG trials of the 1970s, is evident in the trials comparing fibrinolysis and other medicines, with primary PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI). The paradox is evident in the conservative versus invasive strategy trials of non-ST-elevation MI and unstable angina, where the benefit of revascularization occurs only in high-risk subsets. The paradox often results in sicker patients, who have more to gain from revascularization, being denied it because of the elevated perception of risk (comparable to a reperfusion paradox in ST-elevation MI, where patients most likely to benefit from thrombolytics are denied them because of the perception of risk). Trials that compared medicine with revascularization for the treatment of acute MI support the use of PCI as the preferred early stabilization strategy (90% of all PAMI trial patients). The majority of the PCI versus CABG trials enrolled populations that were at relatively low risk for ischemic clinical events. These trials demonstrated few hard outcome (survival, MI, or stroke) differences between CABG and PCI. On the basis of the results obtained the following conclusions may be drawn: medicines are the primary options for stable, low-risk CAD, and should be given to all CAD patients. Medically refractory is a useful high-risk marker of potential benefit from revascularization. CABG continues to be the complete revascularization option for patients with multivessel, multi-lesion CAD, in part because of its application to chronic occlusions. PCI is the acute stabilization method of choice for patients with on-going ischemia and acute MI, especially among patients with hemodynamic compromise, and/or major comorbidity.     

Effect of completeness of revascularization on clinical outcome in patients with multivessel disease presenting with unstable angina who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention

We evaluated the current short- and medium-term outcomes of complete revascularization, compared to culprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in patients with multivessel coronary disease presenting with unstable angina. One hundred fifty-one patients with multivessel coronary disease presented to a tertiary cardiothoracic center with unstable angina/non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) between January 2000 and September 2001. In group A (n=71), the intended strategy was complete revascularization by multivessel PCI. In group B (n=80), culprit lesion PCI was intended despite the presence of other lesions amenable to PCI (B1) or due to confounding anatomical factors (B2). Clinical variables and endpoints were collected from patient notes, a dedicated database and telephone follow-up, and included recurrent stable and unstable angina, need for repeat PCI or elective coronary artery bypass graft, incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and death. Baseline characteristics were similar in each group. Procedural success was achieved in over 95% of cases in both groups with high stent implantation rates (>96%). There was no observed difference in mortality or incidence of MI between the groups. Compared to group A, more patients in group B1 had residual angina [22.8% (13/57) versus 9.9% (7/71); p=0.041] and required further PCI [17.5% (10/57) versus 7.0% (5/71); p=0.045]. There was a non-significant trend toward fewer readmissions for UA and less long-term antianginal medication in group A [38.0% (27/71) versus 52.6% (30/57); p=0.043]. Complete and culprit lesion revascularization by PCI are safe methods of treating patients with multivessel coronary disease presenting with UA/NSTEMI. Reductions in residual angina, repeat PCI and need for antianginal therapies suggest that complete revascularization should be the strategy of choice when possible.     

Meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials on long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for multivessel coronary artery disease

To provide a quantitative analysis of long-term clinical outcomes, a meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery disease was conducted. The search identified 4 randomized controlled trials of PCI with stenting versus CABG that enrolled patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. In conclusion, pooled analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences in death, cardiac death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and angina pectoris between PCI with stenting and CABG. However, PCI with stenting was associated with a statistically significant increase in subsequent PCI, subsequent CABG, subsequent revascularization (PCI or CABG), and major adverse cardiovascular events relative to CABG.     

Impact of completeness of revascularization on the five-year outcome in percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft patients (from the ARTS-II study)

The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcome at 5 years in patients with complete and incomplete revascularization treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents. Baseline and procedural angiograms and surgical case-record forms were centrally assessed for completeness of revascularization. Patients treated with PCI for incomplete revascularization were stratified according to Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score tertiles. Complete revascularization was achieved in 360 of 588 patients (61.2%) in the PCI with sirolimus-eluting stent group and 477 of 567 patients (84.1%) in the CABG group (p <0.05). There was no significant difference in 5-year survival without major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs; death, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, and any revascularization) between patients with complete and incomplete revascularization treated with PCI or CABG. Survival free from MACCEs in patients with incomplete revascularization treated with PCI was significantly lower than those with complete revascularization treated with CABG (hazard ratio 1.66, 0.96 to 1.80, log-rank p = 0.001). The 5-year MACCE-free survival in patients with incomplete revascularization treated with PCI stratified according to SYNTAX score tertiles showed a significantly lower MACCE survival in the higher SYNTAX tertile compared to the low (hazard ratio 0.56, 0.32 to 0.96, log-rank p = 0.04) and intermediate (hazard ratio 0.50, 0.28 to 0.91, log-rank p = 0.02) tertiles, whereas survival between the low and intermediate SYNTAX tertiles was not significantly different (hazard ratio 1.13, 0.60 to 2.13, log-rank p = 0.71). In conclusion, this study suggests that patients with complex coronary disease, in whom complete revascularization cannot be achieved with PCI, should be offered surgical revascularization. However, in those patients with less complex disease, PCI is a valid alternative even if complete revascularization cannot be achieved.     

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.     

Long-term outcome of patients with incomplete vs complete revascularization after multivessel PTCA: A report from the NHLBI PTCA Registry

Background Incomplete revascularization is frequently the goalas well as the final outcome in patients with multivessel coronarydisease undergoing PTCA. However, the long-term impact of incompleterevascularization is not known and this common PTCA strategydeserves further scrutiny. Methods and results Complete revascularization was achievedin 132 of 757 patients with multivessel disease in the 1985–86NHLBI PTCA Registry. Compared to patients in whom complete revascularizationwas achieved, patients with incomplete revascularization wereolder (P<0·05), more likely to be females (P<0·05)and to have recent myocardial infarction (P<0·05),unstable angina (P<0·001), and urgent or emergentPTCA (P<0·001). Early death, Q wave myocardial infarctionand CABG rates were higher in patients with incomplete thanin those with complete revascularization [significantly different(P<0·05) only for emergency and elective CABG]. At9 years, nearly twice as many patients with incomplete revascularizationexperienced recurrent angina (19% vs 10% for patients with completerevascularization,P<0·05). Patients with completerevascularization were more likely to undergo repeat PTCA thanthose with incomplete revascularization (40% vs 30%,P<0·05).Patients with incomplete revascularization were more likelyto undergo CABG than patients with complete revascularization(32% vs 14%,P<0·001; adjusted risk 2·56, 95%CI 1·60, 4·10). Among patients with incompleterevascularization, those in whom PTCA was intended but not attemptedhad the highest early event rates and late CABG rates. Finally,the adjusted risk of dying, having a Q wave myocardial infarction,recurrent angina or repeat PTCA was not different at 9-yearfollow-up among patients with and without complete revascularization. Conclusions Complete revascularization achieved by PTCA reduceslate occurrence of CABG, but not adjusted rates of death, Qwave myocardial infarction, recurrent angina, and repeat PTCAin patients with multivessel coronary disease. These data tendto support the PTCA strategy of incomplete revascularizationin patients with multivessel disease when complete revascularizationis not feasible or not planned before the procedure.     

老年多支血管病变患者置入药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术后近远期临床结果

目的:本研究旨在比较老年(年龄≥75岁)稳定性冠心病合并多支血管病变患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)置入药物洗脱支架(DES)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的近远期临床结果。方法:本研究于2003年7月至2006年12月,连续入选年龄≥75岁稳定性冠心病合并多支血管病变患者363例,在我院行PCI置入DES(n=269)或CABG(n=94)治疗。主要终点为24个月时主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE),次要终点为24个月时全因死亡及非致死性心肌梗死(MI)、脑血管事件和再次血运重建以及全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件。结果:住院期间,CABG组的病死率(7.4%vs.1.9%,P=0.023)和非致死性MI的发生率(3.2%vs.0,P=0.023),明显高于DES组,CABG组的MACCE的发生率也明显高于DES组(10.6%vs.1.9%,P=0.001)。多因素回归分析结果显示:24个月时,CABG组和DES组的主要终点事件的风险未见明显差异[22.3%vs.15.2%,风险比(HR)=1.62,95%CI 0.63～3.31,P=0.379],两组的全因死亡、心源性死亡、非致死性MI、脑血管事件和再次血运重建的风险也没有明显差异;CABG组全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件的风险明显高于DES组(19.1%vs.8.2%,HR 3.87,95%CI:1.24～12.37,P=0.009)。结论:本研究提示,与DES相比,CABG可能会增加75岁以上多支血管病变患者的远期全因死亡、非致死性MI和脑血管事件复合终点事件的风险,而未降低再次血运重建和MACCE。