糖尿病多支冠状动脉病变患者不同血管重建疗效的比较

目的:评价对糖尿病多支冠状动脉病变患者的裸支架(BMS)置入、药物洗脱支架(DES)置入和冠状动脉搭桥手术(CABG)3种不同血管重建的疗效。方法:选择接受血管重建治疗的糖尿病伴多支冠状动脉病变患者427例,比较其BMS、DES和CABG不同治疗方法的疗效和随访2年的临床结果。结果:BMS、DES和CABG3组间住院时期的不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义。2年随访结果中,BMS组、DES组再次血管重建率分别为17.6%、10.4%,均显著高于CABG组的1.9%(P<0.01);BMS组的总MACCE发生率为23.1%,显著高于CABG组的10.7%(P<0.01),而DES的总MACCE发生率与CABG组相比差异无统计学意义。结论:糖尿病多支血管病变患者置入BMS后再次血管重建率和总MACCE发生率显著高于CABG,而DES的中期临床疗效并不逊于CABG。     

药物洗脱支架置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗糖尿病合并多支病变的近中期疗效分析

目的比较药物洗脱支架(DES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗糖尿病合并多支病变患者住院时和12个月的临床效果。方法入选2003年7月至2005年12月北京安贞医院645例糖尿病合并多支病变进行血运重建的患者,比较CABG和置入DES组全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死(M I)、脑血管事件、再次血运重建以及总的心脑血管不良事件(MACCE)发生率。结果 CABG组更多合并有左主干病变、慢性闭塞病变、C型病变和3支病变,完全血运重建较高(P均<0.001);DES组和CABG组总死亡率(P=0.460)、心脏性死亡和非致死性M I复合终点事件(P=0.076)的发生率差异无统计学意义;DES组MACCE、再次血运重建发生率明显增高(P均<0.001)。结论糖尿病合并多支病变患者12个月时CABG有较低MACCE,与再次血运重建发生率较低有关;DES有较高的再次血运重建发生率,与糖尿病较高的再狭窄率和PC I较低的完全血运重建率有关。     

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。     

药物洗脱支架与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干病变的临床疗效对比

目的:评估药物洗脱支架(DES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗无保护左主干病变的临床疗效。方法:分析2003-10-2010-09期间行血运重建的282例无保护左主干患者的临床资料,其中接受DES者143例(DES组),接受CABG者139例(CABG组),比较2组住院期和随访期心脑血管不良事件(死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、脑卒中和再次血运重建,即MACCE)的发生情况。结果:DES组手术成功率为100%,住院期间1例发生非致死性心肌梗死,无一例死亡、脑血管意外或需再次血运重建;CABG组手术成功率为95.7%,住院期间有1例发生非致死性急性心肌梗死,无一例需再次血运重建,共有6例死亡;CABG组住院期死亡率明显高于DES组(4.3%∶0,P<0.05),住院期CABG组总MACCE发生率也明显高于DES组(5.0%∶0.7%,P<0.05);随访期平均(17±8)个月,DES组临床心绞痛复发率和再次血运重建率较CABG组有增高趋势(7.8%∶2.7%,7.0%∶1.8%),但差异无统计学意义,其总MACCE发生率显著高于CABG组(14.8%∶7.1%,P<0.05);剔除新发病变及病变进展病例后,2组总MACCE发生率(7.8%∶7.1%)差异无统计学意义。结论:DES治疗无保护左主干病变安全和有效,可以作为CABG的一种替代治疗手段。     

对比两种完全血运重建对冠状动脉多支血管病变伴慢性肾脏疾病患者临床预后的影响

目的:对比药物洗脱支架(DES)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)两种完全血运重建方式对冠状动脉多支病变伴慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)患者临床预后的影响.方法:根据改良MDRD公式,对因冠状动脉多支病变接受DES和CABG的患者的肾功能进行评估,筛选出824例CKD患者接受了完全血运重建治疗,其中冠状动脉双支病变409例(DES 312例,CABG 97例),冠状动脉三支病变415例(DES 167例,CABG 248例).为校正基线资料的差异,对冠状动脉双支病变和三支病变置入DES和接受了CABG的临床预后进行分别对比.首要终点为2年内全因死亡、心肌梗死以及脑血管事件的复合终点事件,次级终点为2年内再次血运重建.结果:在冠状动脉双支病变患者中,DES患者复合终点事件及再次血运重建的发生率均与CABG患者相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).在三支病变患者中,DES患者复合终点的发生率与CABG患者相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).而DES患者再次血运重建的发生率显著高于CABG患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).Kaplan-Meier生存曲线分析:在冠状动脉三支病变患者中,DES患者2年内无复合终点事件的生存率与CABG患者相比,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);而再次血运重建生存率在DES患者明显低于CABG患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).Cox多因素分析表明,冠状动脉三支病变人群中DES患者再次血运重建的风险显著高于CABG患者(风险比:2.32,95%可信区间:1.57～7.33,P=0.024).结论:在冠状动脉多支病变伴CKD患者中,CABG和DES两种血运重建策略显示出相同的无复合终点生存率.但在冠状动脉三支病变患者中,即使在同样接受完全血运重建治疗后,DES再次血运重建的风险依然高于CABG.     

冠心病合并糖尿病冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术对比研究

目的 比较经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)支架术与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗冠心痛合并糖尿病患者住院与临床随访结果.方法 入选2001年7月至2004年6月在DESIRE注册的1040例冠心病合并糖尿病的患者,分别接受PCI治疗和CABG治疗,对所有患者的临床情况与冠状动脉造影特征、血运重建情况、住院临床结果以及临床随访结果进行回顾性分析.结果 与CABG组相比,PCI组的院内主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)发生率较低(P＜0.01);院内病死率较低(P＜0.01);多因素Logistic回归分析显示,CABG组院内MACCE发生的风险显著高于PCI组(P=0.002).平均随访22个月,两组随访MACCE发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);PCI组再次血运重建率高于CABG组(P＜0.01).多因素Cox回归分析表明,两组随访MACCE风险差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 冠心病合并糖尿病患者PCI术后院内MACCE发生率较低,但PCI后随访再次血运重建率高于CABG.广泛应用药物洗脱支架有望改善PCI的长期结果.     

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。     

冠心病多支病变雷帕霉素洗脱支架置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术的疗效对比

目的:对比雷帕霉素洗脱支架(SES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABO)的近期与中期临床疗效.方法:单中心回顾性连续入选2003年7月～2004年6月期间行择期血运重建的多支冠状动脉病变患者,分为CAB(;组(811例),SES组(251例).随访终点事件包括死亡、心肌梗死、脑卒中和再次血运重建等主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE).采用Kaplan-Meier方法估计无事件生存率.采用Logistic多元回归方法调整分析治疗对终点事件的相对影响.结果:随访率90.3%.中位随访时间19个月.随访30 d,CABG组MACCE的发生率高于SES组(5.4%: 1.6%,OR 3.66,95%CI 1.26～10.61),CABG组的病死率高于SES组(4.6%:1.2%,OR4.02,95%CI 1.18～13.74).至随访结束,SES组累积病死率低于CAB(;组(3.1%:7.6%,OR 0.44,95%CI0.19～0.99),但再次血运重建率高于CABG组(8.4%:1.5%,OR 6.83,95%CI 3.07～15.19),MACCE 2组间差异无统计学意义.以30 d为分期分析,CABG组30d生存率低于SES组(95.4%;98.8%,P＜0.05),2组30d后生存率差异无统计学意义(97.2%:98.3%,P＞0.05).结论:多支冠状动脉病变CABG与SES置入比较,CABG的30 d病死率高于SES置入,30 d后病死率差异无统计学意义;多支冠状动脉SES置入的中期血运重建率高于CABG.     

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.     

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.     

多支冠状动脉病变患者1911例PCI二年疗效

目的评价多支冠状动脉病变（MVD）通过经皮冠状动脉介入（PCI）进行血运重建的长期疗效。方法1995年6月2003年12月连续2028例在我院成功接受PCI的MVD患者,对其心绞痛复发率、造影复查再狭窄率和主要不良心脏事件（MACE）的发生率进行回顾分析。结果2028例MVD患者,完全性血运重建率86.2%（1748/2028）,住院期间共死亡26例（总病死率1.3%）,对存活出院的2002例患者中的1911例随访24个月,随访率95.5%,其心绞痛复发率、造影复查再狭窄率和MACE发生率分别为10.7%、14.6%、25.4%,其中1754例植入普通金属支架（BMS）,157例植入药物洗脱支架（DES）。尽管DES组患者冠心病危险因素多、病变程度复杂,不稳定心绞痛占61.8%、糖尿病占41.4%、慢性完全闭塞病变（CTO）占37.6%、3支病变占58.0%,但心绞痛复发率、造影复查再狭窄率和MACE发生率均显著低于BMS组（分别为4.5%vs11.2%,3.2%vs15.7%,8.9%vs26.9%,均P<0.01）。结论PCI进行血运重建是治疗MVD的有效方法,但仍存在BMS支架术后不良事件发生率高,DES用于治疗MVD具有更好的长期疗效。     

Survival of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease after surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization: results of a large regional prospective study. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess survival among patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). BACKGROUND: The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) demonstrated that diabetics with MVD survive longer after initial CABG than after initial PCI. Other randomized trials or observational databases have not conclusively reproduced this result. METHODS: A large, regional database was linked to the National Death Index to assess five-year mortality. Of 7,159 consecutive patients with diabetes who underwent coronary revascularization in northern New England during 1992 to 1996, 2,766 (38.6%) were similar to those randomized in the BARI trial. Percutaneous coronary intervention was the initial revascularization strategy in 736 patients and CABG in 2,030. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate risk-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%). RESULTS: Patients who underwent PCI were younger, had higher ejection fractions and less extensive coronary disease. After adjusting for differences in baseline clinical characteristics, patients with diabetes treated with PCI had significantly greater mortality relative to those undergoing CABG (HR = 1.49; CI 95%: 1.02 to 2.17; p = 0.037). Mortality risk tended to increase more among 1,251 patients with 3VD (HR = 2.02; CI 95%: 1.04 to 3.91; p = 0.038) than among 1,515 patients with 2VD (HR = 1.33; CI 95%: 0.84 to 2.1; p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a large regional contemporary database of patients with diabetes selected to be similar to those enrolled in the BARI trial, five-year mortality was significantly increased after initial PCI. This supports the BARI conclusion on initial revascularization of patients with diabetes and MVD.     

冠状动脉病变患者429例经皮冠状动脉介入术后1年造影随访分析

目的 评价冠状动脉多支血管病变(MVD)通过经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)进行血运重建的长期疗效.方法 2010年3月至2011年5月在第三军医大学附属西南医院成功接受PCI治疗的429例患者,术后约1年进行血管造影随访,并对其心绞痛复发率、造影复查再狭窄率和主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率进行回顾分析.结果 429例PCI患者完全性血运重建病例比率为95.8%,住院期间无心源性死亡病例,其心绞痛复发率、造影复查再狭窄率分别为10.1%、4.4%,MACE主要是1年内再次行血运重建的患者,发生率为3.5%.患者血运重建后心功能、每周心绞痛发作频次均有明显改善,显著提高了患者的生活质量及生存率.结论 PCI进行血运重建是治疗冠心病特别是MVD的有效方法,合理的PCI方案及药物洗脱支架的应用是改善患者远期预后的关键.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery in multivessel disease? A tailored approach based on coronary pressure measurement

The optimal revascularization strategy, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term outcomes after selective PCI of only hemodynamically significant lesions (fractional flow reserve, or FFR < 0.75) to CABG of all stenoses in patients with MVD. In 150 patients with MVD referred for CABG, FFR was determined in 381 coronary arteries considered for bypass grafting. If the FFR was less than 0.75 in three vessels or in two vessels including the proximal left anterior descending (LAD) artery, CABG was performed (CABG group). If only one or two vessels were physiologically significant (not including the proximal LAD), PCI of those lesions was performed (PCI group). Of the 150 patients, 87 fulfilled the criteria for CABG and 63 for PCI. There were no significant differences in the angiographic or other baseline characteristics between the two groups. At 2-year follow-up, no differences were seen in adverse events, including repeat revascularization (event-free survival 74% in the CABG group and 72% in the PCI group). A similar number of patients were free from angina (84% in the CABG group and 82% in the PCI group). Importantly, the results in both groups were as good as the surgical groups in previous studies comparing PCI and CABG in MVD. In patients with multivessel disease, PCI in those with one or two hemodynamically significant lesions as identified by an FFR < 0.75 yields a similar favorable outcome as CABG in those with three or more culprit lesions despite a similar angiographic extent of disease.     

PCI versus CABG for multivessel coronary disease in diabetics

Objectives: To explore the clinical performance of a strategy of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with multivessel disease (MVD) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), when it is based on clinical judgment. Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for poor outcome after PCI. However, PCI may result in better outcome if the choice of revascularization (PCI versus CABG) is based on the physician decision, rather than randomization. Limited experiences have compared revascularization by DES‐PCI versus CABG in DM patients with MVD. Methods: From August 2004 to August 2005, 220 consecutive DM patients with MVD underwent DES‐PCI (93) or CABG (127) at our Institution. The type of revascularization was dependent on patient and/or physician choice. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) included death, myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stroke. Results: Compared with PCI patients, CABG patients had higher prevalence of 3‐vessel disease (P < 0.001), significant LAD involvement (P < 0.001), presence of total occlusions (P = 0.04), collateral circulation (P < 0.001). At 2‐year follow‐up, MACCE were not different between CABG group and DES‐PCI group (OR 1.2; P = 0.6) and, only when the clinical judgment on the revascularization choice was excluded at propensity analysis, DES‐PCI increased the risk of 24‐month MACCE in total population (OR 1.8; P = 0.04). Conclusions: For patients with DM and MVD, a clinical judgment‐based revascularization by DES‐PCI is not associated with worse 2‐year outcome compared with CABG. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparing mortality between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in elderly with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease

Coronary artery disease is a critical issue that requires physicians to consider appropriate treatment strategies, especially for elderly people who tend to have several comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus (DM) and multivessel disease (MVD). Several studies have been conducted comparing clinical outcomes between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in patients with DM and MVD. However, elderly people were excluded in those clinical studies. Therefore, there are no comparisons of clinical outcomes between CABG and PCI in elderly patients with DM and MVD. We compared all-cause mortality between PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) and CABG in elderly patients with DM and MVD. A total of 483 (PCI; n = 256, CABG; n = 227) patients were analyzed. The median follow-up period was 1356 days (interquartile range of 810–1884). The all-cause mortality rate was not significantly different between CABG and PCI with DES groups. The CABG group had more patients with complex coronary lesions such as three-vessel disease or a left main trunk lesion. Older age, hemodialysis, and reduced LVEF were associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. The rate of all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the PCI and CABG groups in elderly patients with DM and MVD in a single-center study.     

急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死合并多支冠状动脉病变血运重建策略研究进展

急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)合并多支冠状动脉病变比较常见,对患者死亡率及预后产生不良影响。与单支冠状动脉病变相比,多支冠状动脉病变患者临床预后差。随着医学发展以及指南更新,STEMI合并多支冠状动脉病变血运重建策略有了新的变化。对于血流动力学稳定的STEMI患者,急诊经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗时可同时或另行分期处理非梗死相关动脉;对于血流动力学不稳定的STEMI患者,完全血运重建可能增加手术并发症、心力衰竭恶化、对比剂肾病的风险,急性期仅处理梗死相关动脉(IRA)是合理的。本文就STEMI合并多支冠状动脉病变血运重建策略作一综述。     

Revascularization strategies for patients with stable coronary artery disease

Patients with coronary artery disease who have prognostically significant lesions or symptoms despite optimum medical therapy require mechanical revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or both. In this review, we will evaluate the evidence‐based use of the two revascularization approaches in treating patients with coronary artery disease. CABG has been the predominant mode of revascularization for more than half a century and is the preferred strategy for patients with multivessel disease, especially those with diabetes mellitus, left ventricular systolic dysfunction or complex lesions. There have been significant technical and technological advances in PCI over recent years, and this is now the preferred revascularization modality in patients with single‐vessel or low‐risk multivessel disease. Percutaneous coronary intervention can also be considered to treat complex multivessel disease in patients with increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes including frail patients and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Improvements in both CABG (including total arterial revascularization, off‐pump CABG and ‘no‐touch’ graft harvesting) and PCI (including newer‐generation stents, adjunctive pharmacotherapy and intracoronary imaging) mean that they will continue to challenge each other in the future. A ‘heart team’ approach is strongly recommended to select an evidence‐based, yet individualized, revascularization strategy for all patients with complex coronary artery disease. Finally, optimal medical therapy is important for all patients with coronary artery disease, regardless of the mode of revascularization.     

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.