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。     

药物洗脱支架置入与冠状动脉搭桥治疗糖尿病患者冠状动脉多支病变近中期疗效的比较

目的:比较雷帕霉素洗脱支架(DES)置入术与冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)治疗糖尿病并发冠状动脉多支病变患者的近中期疗效.方法:回顾性分析2003-07-01-2004-06-30入院并接受DES置入或CABG治疗的糖尿病患者490例的基础临床资料、院内及院外随访资料,比较不同冠状动脉血运重建方式对糖尿病多支病变患者临床结果的影响.结果:250例患者接受DES置入(DES组),240例患者选择CABG治疗(CABG组).与DES组相比,CABG组患者的冠状动脉病变更为复杂,左主干病变以及慢性闭塞病变的比例较高;DES组弥漫长病变以及再狭窄病变的比例较高.CABG组与DES组院内不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)发生率差异无统计学意义(3.3%:1.2%,P＞0.05).共有440例患者接受了不同形式的随访,随访率为89.7%.2组患者随访病死率、非致死性脑卒中以及非致死性心肌梗死的发生率均差异无统计学意义; 但DES组患者需要再次血运重建的比例明显高于CABG组(11.3%:1.9%,P<0.01);DES组患者随访MACCE发生率高于CABG组(17.4%:8.6%,P<0.01).再次血运重建比例较高是导致DES组随访不良事件增加的主要原因.结论:糖尿病多支病变患者CABG后近中期MACCE发生率低于DES置入术.     

老年冠心病患者多支病变PCI与CABG治疗的远期疗效比较

目的:比较老年多支冠状动脉病变患者雷帕霉素洗脱支架植入(DES)与冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)的远期疗效。方法:随机入选我院年龄大于75岁,并成功行择期血运重建的,有多支冠状动脉病变的住院患者322例,分为CABG组(160例),DES组(162例)。随访5年的主要不良心脑血管事件(MACE)。采用Kaplan-Meier方法估计无事件生存率。采用Logistic多元回归方法分析治疗对终点事件的影响。结果:322例随访率100%,与DES组比较,CABG组5年MACE发生率明显减低(18.52%比3.75%,P<0.05),再次血运重建率明显减低(12.3%比0.63%,P<0.01);两组间5年生存率无明显差异(98.8%比98.1%,P>0.05)。结论:高龄老年多支冠脉病变患者CABG与雷帕霉素洗脱支架植入比较,二者生存率无显著差异;但CABG组的远期心脑血管事件发生率、血运重建率显著低于雷帕霉素洗脱支架植入组。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

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.     

Are drug-eluting stents superior to bare metal stents when compared to coronary artery bypass surgery? Show me the data

Recent randomized trials comparing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) versus drug eluting stents (DES) observed better survival, survival free of myocardial infarction (MI) and free from death, MI and stroke in patients with 3-vessel disease and diabetics if they were treated with DES. In the past, when we used bare metal stent (BMS) and meta-analysis of randomized trials with BMS and CABG, patients with 3-vessel disease and those with diabetes at 5 years of follow up had similar incidence of death, MI and stroke with CABG and BMS. The results reported recently by the SYNTAX and FREEDOM trials suggested a lack of clinical benefit with DES compared to BMS. The author in the article compared these recent results with the above meta-analysis and made an indirect comparison among DES, BMS and CABG. Reasons for these intriguing findings were discussed, and also a search for potential solutions was conducted.     

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.     

A comparison between coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and drug eluting stent for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in elderly patients (aged > or =75 years).

AIMS: In this study, we compared the clinical outcomes of elderly patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis treated with either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or drug-eluting stent (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2003 to April 2006, 259 patients with ULMCA stenosis and age > or =75 years underwent coronary revascularization with either CABG or DES. One hundred and sixty-one patients were treated with CABG and 98 with DES. The cumulative unadjusted rates of 2-year mortality were 17% in CABG-treated patients and 18% in those treated with DES (P = 0.71). The adjusted rates of 2-year survival were 85% for CABG-treated patients and 87% for DES-treated patients (P = 0.74). The incidence of 2-year myocardial infarction was 6% in CABG-treated patients and 4% in DES-treated patients (P = 0.11). The incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 3% in CABG-treated patients and 25% in DES-treated patients (P < 0.0001). In the multivariable analysis, peripheral vascular disease, left ventricular ejection fraction and acute coronary syndrome were independent predictors of 2-year mortality. CONCLUSION: In this study, we could not demonstrate a difference in mortality between CABG-treated patients and those treated with DES. However, the rate of TLR was higher in the DES group.     

Changes of Heart Rate Variability After Coronary Bypass Grafting

Background: Heart rate variability (HRV) may serve as a follow-up parameter in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Several studies have shown significant changes of HRV parameters in the case of restenosis. The value of this method as a prognostic parameter in patients following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unknown. Methods: In the present study we investigated changes of HRV parameters in patients undergoing CABG to prove whether this method would predict the outcome in these patients. Twenty patients (six female, 14 male, age 51–75 years, mean 62 years) with angiographically documented coronary artery disease (1 × 1-vessel disease, 10 × 2-vessel disease, 9 × 3-vessel disease) were investigated. Eight patients had previous myocardial infarction: 3 × anterior infarction and 5 × inferior infarction. Before and after CABG 24-hour measurement of HRV was performed using Holler monitoring (elapsed time between the two measurements 218 ± 92 days). All patients underwent successful CABG with complete revascularization. The following time domain parameters were calculated: SDNN, SDNN index, SDANN, r-MSSD and pNN50. Results: These parameters showed a significant decrease after CABG (P < 0.05) except rMSSD, which was below the statistic level. The results of the patients without previous myocardial infarction suggested that the parasympathetically influenced paramenters r-MSSD and pNN50 were mainly involved, while in the subgroup with previous myocardial infarction the sympathetically influenced parameters (SDNN, SDANN) were significantly changed. Other variables such as ejection fraction or severity of coronary artery disease did not influence the HRV results. Conclusions: In contratst to patients with revascularization by PTCA, HRV does not seem to be a suitable predictive parameter in patients after successful CABG. Intrinsic operative alterations with injury of cardiac nerves may be responsible for this observation.     

Long-Term Outcomes After PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease According to Lesion Location

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the impact of lesion site (ostial or shaft vs. distal bifurcation) on long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease.BackgroundLong-term comparative data after PCI and CABG for LMCA disease according to lesion site are limited.MethodsPatients from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry were analyzed, comparing adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality [a composite outcome of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke] and target vessel revascularization) between PCI and CABG according to LMCA lesion location during a median follow-up period of 12.0 years.ResultsIn overall population, the adjusted risks for death and serious composite outcome were higher after PCI than after CABG for distal bifurcation disease, which was mainly separated beyond 5 years. These outcomes were not different for ostial or shaft disease. When comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) and CABG, the adjusted risks for death and serious composite outcome progressively diverged beyond 5 years after DES compared with CABG for distal bifurcation disease (death: hazard ratio: 1.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 2.59; composite outcome: hazard ratio: 1.94; 95% confidence interval: 1.35 to 2.79). This difference was driven mainly by PCI with a 2-stent technique for distal bifurcation. In contrast, the adjusted risks for these outcomes were similar between DES and CABG for ostial or shaft disease.ConclusionsAmong patients with distal LMCA bifurcation disease, CABG showed lower mortality and serious composite outcome rates compared with DES beyond 5 years. However, there were no between-group differences in these outcomes among patients with ostial or shaft LMCA disease.     

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.     

国产药物洗脱支架在冠心病中的临床应用

目的评价国产药物洗脱支架(Firebird)临床应用的安全性和有效性。方法30例冠心病患者予置入Firebird支架治疗,术后对患者进行随访,观察有无胸痛复发,心电图异常改变,重要心脏不良事件等。结果30例患者共置入Firebird支架45枚,手术即刻成功率100%。对患者至少3个月随访,平均随访8个月,无重要心脏不良事件发生,1例胸痛复发,予冠脉搭桥治疗。结论Firebird支架置入即刻成功率高,治疗冠心病安全、有效。     

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.     

Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery with percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of consecutive, selected patients treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. BACKGROUND: Although recent data suggest that PCI with DES provides better clinical outcomes compared to bare-metal stenting for ULMCA disease, there is a paucity of data comparing PCI with DES to CABG. METHODS: Since April 2003, when DES first became available at our institution, 123 patients underwent CABG, and 50 patients underwent PCI with DES for ULMCA disease. RESULTS: High-risk patients (Parsonnet score >15) comprised 46% of the CABG group and 64% of the PCI group (p = 0.04). The 30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate for CABG and PCI was 17% and 2% (p < 0.01), respectively. The mean follow-up was 6.7 +/- 6.2 months in the CABG group and 5.6 +/- 3.9 months in the PCI group (p = 0.26). The estimated MACCE-free survival at six months and one year was 83% and 75% in the CABG group versus 89% and 83% in the PCI group (p = 0.20). By multivariable Cox regression, Parsonnet score, diabetes, and CABG were independent predictors of MACCE. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher percentage of high-risk patients, PCI with DES for ULMCA disease was not associated with an increase in immediate or medium-term complications compared with CABG. Our data suggest that a randomized comparison between the two revascularization strategies for ULMCA may be warranted.