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。     

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.     

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.     

药物洗脱支架和冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干病变的疗效分析

背景冠状动脉无保护左主干病变(ULMCA)在冠脉病变患者中风险最高,预后最差,冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)能显著降低死亡率,延长患者生存期,故一直被认为是治疗冠脉无保护左主干病变的金标准。但随着冠脉介入技术的进步,药物洗脱支架(DES)能显著降低支架置入后再狭窄的风险和再介入的比例,因此也成为无保护左主干病变的治疗方法之一,而冠脉搭桥作为左主干病变治疗金标准的的地位正日益受到挑战。目的比较药物洗脱支架(DES)置入与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)对冠状动脉无保护左主干病变患者的近期及远期疗效。方法回顾性收集2006年12月到2009年12月在苏州大学附属第一人民医院接受治疗的49例冠状动脉左主干狭窄患者的临床资料,其中26例置入药物洗脱支架(DES组),23例患者接受了冠脉旁路移植术(CABG组),记录两组患者围手术期、术后6月到3年的主要心脑血管不良事件(MAC-CE)发生率。结果 (1)两组患者一般临床特征比较无统计学意义;(2)平均随访(16.4±8.8)个月,DES组与CABG组的MACCE发生率分别为11.5%及13.0%,P>0.05;(3)DES组与CABG组术后2年无事件生存率分别为78.8%及85.0%,P>0.05。结论药物洗脱支架置入对于无保护左主干病变患者是安全、有效、可行的,有着与冠脉搭桥相似的近、远期疗效,但对于左主干累及分叉病变者,DES组因较高的血运重建率而疗效略差于CABG。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

高龄无保护左主干病变不宜行冠状动脉搭桥患者介入治疗效果评价

目的:冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)一直是左主干病变的首选治疗,关于高龄左主干病变但不宜行CABG治疗的患者临床研究较少。本研究针对这一特殊人群进行经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)治疗后的临床情况进行随访。方法:入选年龄≥75岁不宜行CABG治疗的无保护左主干病变患者,随访患者的临床终点事件,死亡、心源性死亡、心肌梗死及靶血管重建。结果:研究共入选115例高龄左主干病变患者。平均年龄(78.3±2.6)岁,平均Syntax评分和Euroscore评分为(29.3±6.1)和(7.8±4.2),随访总病死率是9.5%,心源性死亡、心肌梗死及靶血管重建率分别为7%,6.1%及6.1%,MACCE事件发生率为16.5%。男性和慢性肾功能不全与全因死亡显著相关。结论:PCI治疗为高龄不宜行CABG治疗的左主干患者提供了α-选择。男性和慢性肾功能不全与全因死亡显著相关。     

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.     

Outcomes of revascularization strategies for two-vessel coronary artery disease involving the proximal left anterior descending artery in an era of improved pharmacotherapy and stenting

BACKGROUND

The best therapeutic strategy for patients with double-vessel coronary artery disease and proximal left anterior descending artery involvement (2VD + pLAD) is not clear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the survival experience of a cohort of cardiac catheterization patients with 2VD + pLAD based on chosen therapeutic strategy (medical management versus percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]).

METHODS

The authors identified and studied a total of 603 patients with 2VD + pLAD from all patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography in Alberta between January 1997 and May 1999. The primary end point was five-year survival from index catheterization for each of the treatment groups and from time of revascularization when the two revascularization strategies were compared.

RESULTS

Risk-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) comparing cumulative five-year survival rates of patients treated medically, or with PCI or CABG indicated a survival benefit for patients treated with CABG (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54; P<0.001) and PCI (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; P=0.003) compared with medical management. Meanwhile, a risk-adjusted comparison of revascularization strategies suggested a possible trend toward higher mortality for PCI-treated patients versus CABG-treated patients (HR 1.56, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.72; P=0.125).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this registry-based observational study suggest a survival benefit from revascularization compared with medical management in patients with 2VD + pLAD. Furthermore, the authors found a trend toward better survival in CABG-treated patients compared with PCI-treated patients.     

Late loss of early benefit from drug-eluting stents when compared with bare-metal stents and coronary artery bypass surgery: 3 years follow-up of the ERACI III registry.

Aims: Long-term benefit from coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES) relative to bare metal stents (BMS) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has not been established. One year follow-up of the ERACI III registry study showed better outcome with DES. To compare major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates in patients with multivessel cardiovascular disease (CVD) who received DES with those patients treated with BMS or CABG in the ERACI II trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with multivessel CVD who met the ERACI II trial, clinical and angiographic inclusion criteria were treated with DES and enrolled in the ERACI III registry. The primary endpoint was 3-year MACCE. ERACI III-DES patients (n = 225) were compared with the BMS (n = 225) and CABG (n = 225) arms of ERACI II. Patients treated with DES were older, more often smokers, more often high risk by euroSCORE and less frequently had unstable angina. They also had higher incidence of type C lesions and received more stents than the BMS-treated cohort. Three year MACCE was lower in ERACI III-DES (22.7%) than in ERACI II-BMS (29.8%, P = 0.015), mainly reflecting less target vessel revascularization (14.2 vs. 24.4%, P = 0.009). MACCE rates at 3 years were similar in DES and CABG-treated patients (22.7%, P = 1.0), in contrast to results at 1 year (12 vs. 19.6%, P = 0.038). MACCE rates in ERACI III-DES were higher in diabetics (RR 0.81, 0.66-0.99; P = 0.018). Death or non-fatal MI at 3 years trended higher in the DES (10.2%) than BMS cohort (6.2%, P = 0.08) and lower than in CABG patients (15.1%, P = 0.07). Sub-acute late-stent thrombosis (LST) (>30 days) occurred in nine DES patients and no BMS patients (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In patients with multivessel CVD, the initial advantage for PCI with DES over CABG observed at 1 year was not apparent by 3 years. Furthermore, despite continued lower incidence of MACCE, initial advantage over BMS appeared to decrease with time. LST occurred more frequent in DES-treated patients.     

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.     

Long‐term clinical outcomes after drug‐eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Objective: To investigate long‐term outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease treatment using drug‐eluting stents (DES). Background: In several studies, DES implantation in ULMCA appeared safe and effective at mid‐term; however, to date, there is limited long‐term data. Methods : All consecutive patients undergoing sirolimus‐ or paclitaxel‐eluting stent implantation in ULMCA disease at a single institution were evaluated. The primary endpoint was long‐term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Stent thrombosis (ST), according to Academic Research Consortium definitions, was also evaluated. Results: A total of 210 patients were assessed. In‐hospital MACE rate was 1%. During a mean follow‐up of 28.0 ± 14.5 months, MACE occurred in 26 patients (12.5%): cardiac death in nine patients (4.3%) and TLR in 17 patients (8.2%). The cumulative MACE‐free survival rate was 89.0, 87.4, and 85.4% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. ST occurred in three patients (1.4%): one case was definite and the other two were probable/possible ST; there were no cases of very late ST. Binary restenosis occurred in 8.3%. The EuroScore >6 was the only independent predictor of MACE [hazard ratio (HR) 2.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05–4.77, P = 0.04]. There was a trend toward an increased risk of MACE associated with distal ULMCA location (HR 2.14, 95% CI 0.87–5.29, P = 0.10). Conclusions: Our study showed DES implantation in ULMCA to be feasible, safe, and effective at long term. Randomized trials comparing percutaneous versus surgical revascularization are warranted to define the treatment of choice for ULMCA disease. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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。     

Multicenter international registry of unprotected left main coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention with drug‐eluting stents in patients with myocardial infarction

Background: Patients who present with myocardial infarction (MI) and unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease represent an extremely high‐risk subset of patients. ULMCA percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) in MI patients has not been extensively studied. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter international registry, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of 62 consecutive patients with MI who underwent ULMCA PCI with DES (23 ST‐elevation MI [STEMI] and 39 non‐ST‐elevation MI [NSTEMI]) from 2002 to 2006. Results: The mean age was 70 ± 12 years. Cardiogenic shock was present in 24%. The mean EuroSCORE was 10 ± 8. Angiographic success was achieved in all patients. Overall in‐hospital major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was 10%, mortality was 8%, all due to cardiac deaths from cardiogenic shock, and one patient suffered a periprocedural MI. At 586 ± 431 days, 18 patients (29%) experienced MACE, 12 patients (19%) died (the mortality rate was 47% in patients with cardiogenic shock), and target vessel revascularization was performed in four patients, all of whom had distal bifurcation involvement (two patients underwent repeat PCI and two patients underwent bypass surgery). There was no additional MI. Two patients had probable stent thrombosis and one had possible stent thrombosis. Diabetes [hazard ratio (HR) 4.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.07–17.36), P = 0.04), left ventricular ejection fraction [HR 0.94, 95% CI (0.90–0.98), P = 0.005), and intubation [HR 7.00, 95% CI (1.62–30.21), P = 0.009) were significantly associated with increased mortality. Conclusions: Patients with MI and ULMCA disease represent a very high‐risk subgroup of patients who are critically ill. PCI with DES appears to be technically feasible, associated with acceptable long‐term outcomes, and a reasonable alternative to surgical revascularization for MI patients with ULMCA disease. Randomized trials are needed to determine the ideal revascularization strategy for these patients. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Effect of revascularization on coronary chronic total occlusion in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting

BackgroundBypass grafting for chronic total occlusions (CTOs) remains surgically challenging and controversial. Therefore, we evaluated the incidence and clinical outcomes of revascularization on CTOs undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).MethodsAmong 828 patients who underwent isolated CABG from January 2010 to December 2018, 245 patients (29.6%) diagnosed with at least one CTO were included and retrospectively reviewed. Primary endpoints were 30-day and overall mortality. Secondary endpoint was the composite outcome of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).ResultsWith a mean follow-up of 56.6±6.5 months in 245 patients with CTOs, 51 patients (20.8%) received incomplete revascularization (ICR) for CTO lesions. Risk factor analysis showed that ICR was associated with increased 30-day [odds ratio 8.62; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.64–50; P=0.011] and overall mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 2.13; 95% CI: 1.07–4.21; P=0.03). ICR also increased the risk of MACCE (HR 1.98; 95% CI: 1.12–3.54; P=0.01). Freedom from overall mortality was 92.8%, 90.4%, and 86.8% in the complete revascularization group, and 86.3%, 80.0%, and 72.7% in the ICR group, at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively (P=0.004).ConclusionsIn patients with CTOs undergoing CABG, the rate of ICR was 20.8%, and it significantly increased the risk of mortality and MACCE. Further studies in a large cohort are needed.     

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。