Influence of diabetes mellitus on long-term (five-year) outcomes of drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary revascularization

Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and for diffuse and progressive atherosclerosis. We evaluated the outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) placement and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 891 diabetic patients (489 for DES implantation and 402 for CABG) and 2,151 nondiabetic patients (1,058 for DES implantation and 1,093 for CABG) with multivessel CAD treated from January 2003 through December 2005 and followed up for a median 5.6 years. Outcomes of interest included death; the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke; and repeat revascularization. In diabetic patients, after adjusting for baseline covariates, 5-year risk of death (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.33, p = 0.96) and the composite of death, MI, or stroke (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.31, p = 0.91) were similar in patients undergoing DES or CABG. However, rate of repeat revascularization was significantly higher in the DES group (hazard ratio 3.69, 95% confidence interval 2.64 to 5.17, p <0.001). These trends were consistent in nondiabetic patients (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.16, p = 0.23 for death; hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.05, p = 0.10 for composite of death, MI, or stroke; hazard ratio 2.77, 95% CI 1.95 to 3.91, p <0.001 for repeat revascularization). There was no significant interaction between diabetic status and treatment strategy on clinical outcomes (p for interaction = 0.36 for death; 0.20 for the composite of death, MI, or stroke; and 0.40 for repeat revascularization). In conclusion, there was no significant prognostic influence of diabetes on long-term treatment with DES or CABG in patients with multivessel CAD.     

Argentine Randomized Study: Coronary Angioplasty with Stenting versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in patients with Multiple-Vessel Disease (ERACI II): 30-day and one-year follow-up results. ERACI II Investigators

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare percutaneous transluminal coronary revascularization (PTCR) employing stent implantation to conventional coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in symptomatic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: Previous randomized studies comparing balloon angioplasty versus CABG have demonstrated equivalent safety results. However, CABG was associated with significantly fewer repeat revascularization procedures. METHODS: A total of 2,759 patients with coronary artery disease were screened at seven clinical sites, and 450 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either PTCR (225 patients) or CABG (225 patients). Only patients with multivessel disease and indication for revascularization were enrolled. RESULTS: Both groups had similar clinical demographics: unstable angina in 92%; 38% were older than 65 years, and 23% had a history of peripheral vascular disease. During the first 30 days, PTCR patients had lower major adverse events (death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization procedures and stroke) compared with CABG patients (3.6% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.002). Death occurred in 0.9% of PTCR patients versus 5.7% in CABG patients, p < 0.013, and Q myocardial infarction (MI) occurred in 0.9% PTCR versus 5.7% of CABG patients, p < 0.013. At follow-up (mean 18.5 +/- 6.4 months), survival was 96.9% in PTCR versus 92.5% in CABG, p < 0.017. Freedom from MI was also better in PTCR compared to CABG patients (97.7% vs. 93.4%, p < 0.017). Requirements for new revascularization procedures were higher in PTCR than in CABG patients (16.8% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In this selected high-risk group of patients with multivessel disease, PTCR with stent implantation showed better survival and freedom from MI than did conventional surgery. Repeat revascularization procedures were higher in the PTCR group.     

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。     

Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial

OBJECTIVES: The long-term (five-year) comparative results of treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is at present unknown. BACKGROUND: The Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) was designed to compare CABG and stenting in patients with multivessel disease. METHODS: A total of 1,205 patients with the potential for equivalent revascularization were randomly assigned to CABG (n = 605) or stent implantation (n = 600). The primary clinical end point was freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at one year; MACCE at five-year follow-up constituted the final secondary end point. RESULTS: At five years, there were 48 and 46 deaths in the stent and CABG groups, respectively (8.0% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.83; relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.55). Among 208 diabetic patients, mortality was 13.4% in the stent group and 8.3% in the CABG group (p = 0.27; RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.71 to 3.63). Overall freedom from death, stroke, or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between groups (18.2% in the stent group vs. 14.9% in the surgical group; p = 0.14; RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.58). The incidence of repeat revascularization was significantly higher in the stent group (30.3%) than in the CABG group (8.8%; p < 0.001; RR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.61 to 4.60). The composite event-free survival rate was 58.3% in the stent group and 78.2% in the CABG group (p < 0.0001; RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.60 to 2.28). CONCLUSIONS: At five years there was no difference in mortality between stenting and surgery for multivessel disease. Furthermore, the incidence of stroke or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between the two groups. However, overall MACCE was higher in the stent group, driven by the increased need for repeat revascularization.     

Revascularization in severe left ventricular dysfunction: outcome comparison of drug-eluting stent implantation versus coronary artery by-pass grafting.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcome of drug eluting stent (DES) implantation (Sirolimus or Paclitaxel) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction with the outcome of a similar group of patients undergoing coronary artery by-pass grafting (CABG). BACKGROUND: Revascularization provides long-term benefits in patients with severe LV dysfunction. However the modality to achieve it is still unsettled in this high risk group of patients. METHODS: Two-hundred-twenty patients (20% women) with severe LV dysfunction (LV Ejection Fraction 相似文献   

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.     

Multivessel coronary stenting versus bypass surgery in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and normal left ventricular function: immediate and 2-year long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND: Compared with coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), the clinical benefits of intracoronary stenting have not been established in patients with multivessel coronary lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: To compare the clinical outcomes of intracoronary stenting with that of CABG, we reviewed the outcomes of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease from an observational database. Two hundred consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and normal left ventricular function were evaluated. In 200 patients, multivessel stenting was performed in 100 and CABG was performed in 100. Complete revascularization was achieved in 95% in the CABG group and in 69% in the stent group (P <.05). The duration of total hospital stay and coronary care unit admission was significantly shorter in the stent group (P <.05). The long-term survival was similar between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences of cardiac events between the 2 groups except for the recurrence of angina (19% in stenting vs 8% in CABG, P =.03) and target lesion revascularization (19% vs 2%, P <.01) in the patients with stents. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and normal left ventricular function, intracoronary stenting may offer an effective alternative to coronary bypass surgery.     

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。     

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.     

Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention(with drug-eluting stents) versus coronary artery bypass grafting in women with severe narrowing of the left main coronary artery(from the Women-Drug-Eluting Stent for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Regist

Women typically present with coronary artery disease later than men with more unfavorable clinical and anatomic characteristics. It is unknown whether differences exist in women undergoing treatment for unprotected left main coronary artery(ULMCA) disease. Our aim was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes in women treated with percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting(CABG). All consecutive women from the Drug-Eluting stent for LefT main coronary Artery disease registry with ULMCA disease were analyzed. A propensity matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences. In total, 817 women were included: 489(59.8%) underwent treatment with PCI with drug-eluting stents versus 328(40.2%) with CABG. Propensity score matching identified 175 matched pairs, and at longterm follow-up there were no differences in all-cause(odds ratio [OR] 0.722, 95% confidence interval [CI]0.357 to 1.461, P = 0.365) or cardiovascular(OR 1.100, 95% CI 0.455 to 2.660, P = 0.832) mortality, myocardial infarction(MI; OR 0.362, 95% CI 0.094 to 1.388, P = 0.138), or cerebrovascular accident(CVA;OR 1.200, 95% CI 0.359 to 4.007, P = 0.767) resulting in no difference in the primary study objective of death, MI, or CVA(OR 0.711, 95% CI 0.387 to 1.308, P = 0.273). However, there was an advantage of CABG in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events(OR 0.429, 95% CI 0.254 to 0.723, P =0.001), driven exclusively by target vessel revascularization(OR 0.185, 95% CI 0.079 to 0.432, P 0.001).In women with significant ULMCA disease, no difference was observed after PCI or CABG in death, MI,and CVA at long-term follow-up.     

Comparison of coronary drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with diabetes mellitus

We compared 1-year outcome after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation with off-pump bypass grafing (OPCABG) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease involving the proximal segment of the left anterior descending coronary artery. All consecutive diabetic patients treated by DES (DES group) or OPCABG (CABG group) in our institution from April 2002 to December 2004 because of de novo coronary lesions were included. Patients in the CABG group (n = 149) were older and had a higher rate of 3-vessel disease than those in the DES group (n = 69). At 12 months, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in 29% of the DES group and 20.5% of the CABG group (unadjusted analysis, odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.54, p = 0.17). After propensity score analysis, adjusting for baseline differences between the 2 cohorts, DESs increased the risk of 12-month major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio 1.88, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.02, p = 0.020). This was due to the higher rate for repeat revascularization in the DES group (19% vs 5%, odds ratio 2.05, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.75, p = 0.001). In contrast, there was no difference in the rate of the composite end points of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (DES group 13%, CABG group 12%; adjusted analysis, hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.35, p = 0.40). In conclusion, at 1 year in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease involving the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery, the advantage of OPCABG over DES implantation seems to be limited at a lower rate of repeat revascularization. No difference seems to exist in the rate of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction.     

冠状动脉多支血管病变伴慢性肾功能不全患者血管重建策略与预后的关系

目的对比多支血管病变伴慢性肾脏疾病（CKD）患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）和冠状动脉旁路移植术（CABG）的2年临床预后。方法根据改良MDRD公式对北京安贞医院2004年到2006年因多支冠状动脉病变接受药物洗脱支架（DES）或CABG的患者的肾小球滤过率（GFR）进行计算,GFR＆lt;60mL/min诊断为CKD。共入选CKD患者1069例,其中724例接受DES,345例接受CABG。首要终点为2年内死亡、心肌梗死（MI）以及脑血管事件（CVE）的复合终点,次级终点为再次血管重建。结果在2年随访中,CABG组首要终点的发生率为9.9%,DES组为11.3%（P=0.528）。两组之间死亡率差异也无统计学意义（CABG组与DES组分别为3.5%比4.7%,P=0.422）。而DES组2年再次血管重建的比例显著高于CABG组（9.0%比4.1%,P=0.004）。Cox多因素回归分析表明,年龄、糖尿病、左心室功能不全（LVEF＆lt;30%）和急性冠状动脉综合征是复合终点发生的独立预测因素。结论在冠状动脉多支病变伴CKD患者中,CABG和DES两种血管重建策略显示出相同的死亡率和MI、CVE发生率。但DES组患者再次血管重建的发生率依然高于CABC组患者。     

Clinical and economic outcomes of multivessel coronary stenting compared with bypass surgery: a single-center US experience

Background Randomized trials comparing multivessel stenting with coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) have demonstrated similar rates of death and myocardial infarction but higher rates of repeat revascularization after stenting. The impact of these alternative strategies on overall medical care costs is uncertain, particularly within the US health care system. Methods We performed a retrospective, matched cohort study to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of multivessel stenting and bypass surgery. The stent group consisted of 100 consecutive patients who underwent stenting of ≥2 major native coronary arteries at our institution. The CABG group consisted of 200 patients who underwent nonemergent isolated bypass surgery during the same time frame, matched (2:1) for age, sex, ejection fraction, diabetes mellitus, and extent of coronary disease. Detailed clinical follow-up and resource utilization data were collected for a minimum of 2 years. Total costs were calculated by use of year 2000 unit prices. Results Over a median follow up period of 2.8 years, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality rates (3.0% vs 3.0%), Q-wave myocardial infarction (5.1% vs 4.0%), or the composite of death or myocardial infarction (7.1% vs 7.0%) between the stent and CABG groups (P = not significant for all comparisons). However, at 2-year follow up, patients with stents were more likely to require ≥1 repeat revascularization procedure (32.0% vs 4.5%, P < .001). The initial cost of multivessel stenting was 43% less than the cost of CABG ($11,810 vs $20,574, P < .001) and remained 27% less ($17,634 vs $24,288, P = .005) at 2 years. Conclusions Multivessel stenting and CABG result in comparable risks of death and myocardial infarction. Despite a higher rate of repeat revascularization, multivessel stenting was significantly less costly than CABG through the first 2 years of follow-up. (Am Heart J 2003;145:334-42.)     

Long term outcomes of new generation drug eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel and/or left main coronary artery disease. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundMost data guiding revascularization of multivessel disease (MVD) and/or left main disease (LMD) favor coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, those data are based on trials comparing CABG to bare metal stents (BMS) or old generation drug eluting stents (OG-DES). Hence, it is essential to outcomes of CABG to those of new generation drug eluting stents (NG-DES).MethodsWe searched PUBMED and Cochrane database for trials evaluating revascularization of MVD and/or LMD with CABG and/or PCI. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). Primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 3–5 years. Secondary outcomes were mortality, cerebrovascular accidents (CVA), myocardial infarction (MI) and repeat revascularization.ResultsWe included 10 trials with a total of 9287 patients. CABG was associated with lower MACE when compared to BMS or OG-DES. However, MACE was not significantly different between CABG and NG-DES (OR 0.79, CrI 0.45–1.40). Moreover, there were no significant differences between CABG and NG-DES in mortality (OR 0.78, CrI 0.45–1.37), CVA (OR 0.93 CrI 0.35–2.2) or MI (OR 0.6, CrI 0.17–2.0). On the other hand, CABG was associated with lower repeat revascularization (OR 0.55, CrI 0.36–0.84).ConclusionsOur study suggests that NG-DES is an acceptable alternative to CABG in patients with MVD and/or LMD. However, repeat revascularization remains to be lower with CABG than with PCI.     

药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗冠状动脉多支病变的比较

目的比较药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗冠状动脉复杂多支病变的疗效。方法连续入选行血运重建治疗的冠心病多支病变患者200名,随机分为经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)组和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)组,每组100例。PCI组和CABG组中分别有合并糖尿病者(糖尿病亚组)27例和25例。观察术后1年内主要心脑血管不良事件(死亡、脑卒中、非致死性心肌梗死、靶血管再次血运重建)、再狭窄、心绞痛复发发生率,血浆肌酸激酶水平和PCI组支架内血栓形成发生率。结果两组患者的基线特征差异无统计学意义。PCI组与CABG组1个月、6个月和1年的主要心脑血管不良事件发生率分别为4.0%、7.0%、12.0%比6.0%、9.0%、15.2%(P>0.05);心绞痛复发率分别为2.0%、4.0%、6.0%比1.0%、3.0%、5.1%(P>0.05)。术后1年再狭窄率分别为11.3%比13.2%(P>0.05)。PCI组术后亚急性血栓形成率1.0%。PCI组和CABG组术后肌酸激酶MB型同工酶升高的患者比例分别为26%比82%(P<0.05)。PCI组糖尿病亚组与CABG组糖尿病亚组1个月、6个月和1年的严重心脑血管不良事件发生率分别为7.4%、11.1%、18.5%比8.0%、16.0%、24.0%(P>0.05)。结论药物洗脱支架时代PCI与CABG治疗冠状动脉多支病变的近、远期疗效相近,对于合并糖尿病的患者同样有效。     

药物洗脱支架置入术与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗冠心病多支病变的临床对比研究

目的:探讨药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗冠心病多支冠状动脉(冠脉)病变患者的临床疗效,并与冠脉旁路移植术进行比较.方法:入选2005-01-2008-01在我院行血管重建术的215例冠心病多支冠脉病变患者,其中114例行DES置入术(DES组),101例行冠脉旁路移植术 (CABG组).比较2组住院期和随访期不良心血管事件(死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、再次血管重建术和脑血管意外)的发生情况.结果:2组的临床和冠脉病变特征相似, 与DES组比较,CABG组左主干病变(29.2%∶5.0%,P<0.01)、LVEF<50%发生率(39.7%∶19.2%,P<0.01) 和完全血管重建率(81.2%∶58.8%, P<0.01)较高.住院期2组总体不良心血管事件发生率无明显差异,但CABG组住院期病死率有增高趋势(6.9%∶1.8%,P＞0.05).平均临床随访12～36(17±9)个月,2组总体不良心血管事件发生率仍无明显差异(9.6% ∶13.4%,P＞0.05) ,但DES组再次血管重建的发生率较CABG组有增高趋势(9.8%∶2.1%,P＞0.05).结论:DES置入术应用在冠心病多支冠脉病变患者中安全可行,总体不良心血管事件发生率与CABG无明显差异.     

Meta-analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with diabetes and left main and/or multivessel coronary artery disease

The optimal coronary revascularization strategy for patients with diabetes and left main and/or multivessel disease is undetermined. The aim of our study was to evaluate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in those patients. We identified 13 articles, published before October 2011, enrolling 6992 patients, whose follow-up period ranged from 1 to 5 years. Patients with PCI had a significant reduction in cerebral vascular attack (CVA) (OR, 0.29; 95 % CI, 0.16–0.51; p < 0.0001, I ² = 0 %) as compared with CABG, whereas there was a fourfold increased risk of repeat revascularization associated with PCI even using drug-eluting stent (OR, 4.44; 95 % CI, 3.42–5.78; Χ² = 4.92, p < 0.00001, I ² = 0 %). The overall mortality (OR, 0.97; 95 % CI, 0.81–1.15; p = 0.70, I ² = 0 %) was comparable between the PCI and CABG. However, in subgroup analysis, the composite outcome (death/myocardial infarction/CVA) was significantly reduced in favor of DES implantation (OR, 0.79; 95 % CI, 0.63–0.99; Χ² = 1.07, p = 0.04, I ² = 0 %). Our study confirmed the cerebral vascular benefits of PCI by significantly reducing CVA risks, and the composite outcome was better in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent, despite a higher repeat revascularization rate. It poses imperative demands for future prospective randomized studies to define the optimal strategy in patients with diabetes and left main and/or multivessel disease.     

Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary disease

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) constitute a major breakthrough in restenosis prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study compared the clinical outcomes of PCI using DES versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) in real-world. METHODS: From January 2003 to December 2004, 466 consecutive patients with MVD underwent revascularization, 235 by PCI with DES and 231 by CABG. The study end-point was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) at the first 30 days after procedure and during follow-up. RESULTS: Most preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups, but left main disease (24.7% vs 2.6%, P<0.001) and three-vessel disease (65% vs 54%, P = 0.02) were more prevalent in CABG group. The number of coronary lesions was also greater in CABG group (3.7 +/- 1.1 vs 3.3 +/- 1.1, P<0.001). Despite higher early morbidity (3.9% vs 0.8%, P = 0.03) associated with CABG, there were no significant differences in composite MACEs at the first 30 days between the two groups. During follow-up (mean 25+/-8 months), the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular event was similar in both groups (PCI 6.3% vs CABG 5.6%, P = 0.84). However, bypass surgery still afforded a lower need for repeat revascularization (2.8% vs 10.4%, p = 0.001). Consequently, overall MACE rate (14.5% vs 7.9%, P = 0.03) remained higher after PCI. CONCLUSION: PCI with DES is a safe and feasible alternative to CABG for selected patients with MVD. The reintervention gap was further narrowed in the era of DES. Aside from restenosis, progression of disease needs to receive substantial emphasis.     

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。     

Coronary artery stenting in the elderly: short-term outcome and long-term angiographic and clinical follow-up

Objectives. This study sought to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of elderly patients undergoing coronary artery stenting with those of younger patients and to determine the long-term clinical outcome and survival of elderly patients post stent implantation.Background. Elderly patients undergoing coronary revascularization are considered a high-risk group. Few data exist that relate the results of stenting in treating coronary artery disease in the elderly population.Methods. All elderly patients ≥75 years of age who underwent coronary artery stenting between March 1993 and July 1997 (n = 137) at our center were compared to the patients <75 who underwent coronary artery stenting during the same time period (n = 2,551). Long-term clinical follow-up and survival were determined for the elderly group.Results. Elderly patients presented with lower ejection fractions (54% vs. 58%, p = 0.0001), more unstable angina (47% vs. 28%, p = 0.0001), and more multivessel disease (78% vs. 62%, p = 0.0001) than younger patients. These older patients had higher rates of procedure related complications including procedural myocardial infarction (MI) (2.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.2), emergency CABG (3.7% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.04), and death (2.2% vs. 0.12%, p = 0.0001). Angiographic follow-up, obtained in both groups, demonstrated significantly higher restenosis rates in the elderly versus younger patients (47% vs. 28%, p = 0.0007). Longer term clinical follow-up, which was obtained only in the elderly group, showed that at a mean follow-up period of 12 months post coronary stenting, elderly survival free from death, MI, revascularization and angina was 54% and that their overall survival was 91%. Subanalysis of the elderly patients who died showed much higher incidence of combined unstable angina (80%), prior MI (60%), lower ejection fraction (46%), multivessel disease (100%) and complex lesions (100%) than the overall group.Conclusions. Elderly patients who undergo coronary artery stenting have significantly higher rates of procedural complications and worse six month outcomes than younger patients, especially those who present with combined unstable angina, history of MI, EF < 50%, multivessel disease and complex lesions. Overall survival in the elderly population at 12 months postcoronary artery stenting was 91% and event-free survival was 54%.