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。     

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.     

无保护左主干病变患者32例经皮冠状动脉介入治疗临床观察

目的:评估无保护左主干冠状动脉(UPLMCA)病变患者行经皮冠脉介入治疗(PCI)的安全性和有效性。方法:回顾分析2009年9月2013年8月完成的32例行PCI治疗的UPLMCA病变患者的临床资料。结果:32例UPLMCA病变患者中非分叉病变11例,分叉病变21例;所有患者均接受了支架植入术,其中单支架23例,单支架+球囊对吻5例,双支架4例;术中发生迷走反射和边支闭塞致小面积心肌梗死各1例,另1例(SYNTAX评分为37分)于PCI术后4 d死于支架内亚急性血栓形成;出院后随访5~51(22±13)个月,随访率100%,随访期间死亡1例(3%)、发现再狭窄后行靶血管重建3例(9%);住院期间及随访期间总主要心脑血管不良事件发生率19%(6/32)。结论:经选择的UPLMCA病变患者行PCI安全可行,近、中期疗效良好。     

Comparison of outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention in men and women with unprotected left main disease

BACKGROUNDPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) is increasing strategy in coronary artery patients. However, there is a lack of knowledge on the impact of sex on outcomes of patients undergoing ULMCAD PCI.METHODSFrom January 2004 to December 2015, there were 3,960 patients undergoing ULMCAD PCI at our institution, including 3,121 (78.8%) men and 839 (21.2%) women. The clinical outcome included the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization), all-cause death, MI, revascularization at three years follow-up.RESULTSCompared with men, women had not significantly different MACE (14.7% vs. 14.6%, P = 0.89, all-cause death (3.5% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.76), MI (5.0% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.38), revascularization (9.1% vs. 8.9%, P = 0.86), respectively. After adjustment, rates of MACE (HR = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.24−1.81;P < 0.0001) and all-cause death (HR = 1.65; 95% CI: 1.09−2.48; P = 0.017) occurred more frequently in male patients, as well as revascularization (HR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16−1.85;P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONIn this analysis, compared to men, women undergoing ULMCAD PCI have better outcomes of MACE, all-cause death, and revascularization.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has long been the standard strategy for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD). However, over the last two decades, there are marked advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), involving drug-eluting stents (DES), adjunctive antithrombotic drugs, periprocedural management, many studies reported favorable outcomes of PCI of ULMCAD in carefully selected patients.^[1–4]Compared with men, women have additional pathophysiological processes in addition to traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Such areas of ambiguity include the effects of reproductive hormones on inflammatory markers, fat distribution, and atherosclerotic burden as well as a clearer understanding of mental stress-induced and vascular dysfunction-induced ischemia, which is believed to occur more commonly in women than in men.^[5–7]Previous studies have shown differences in outcomes between women and men undergoing PCI.^[8,9] However, existing data is limited by smaller sample sizes which makes it challenging to draw robust conclusions regarding efficacy and safety of PCI in women with ULMCAD.^[10-12] Despite the guidelines, women are less likely than men to undergo revascularization with CAD. Causes include inherent gender bias and underestimation of patient risk, atypical symptoms on presentation, conflicting data from post-hoc analysis of trials regarding revascularization benefit, and higher vascular complications from the procedure.^[13,14] The objective of the present analysis was to investigate the comparative safety and efficacy of PCI between women and men who underwent left main (LM) revascularization.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: A review

The left main coronary artery is responsible for most of the irrigation of the left ventricle. Left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) therefore leads to important morbidity and mortality. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is considered the standard treatment, however, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become a frequent alternative in the treatment of LMCAD. In the current review, four randomized clinical trials comparing PCI with CABG in patients with LMCAD, including new longer follow-up results, are reviewed. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates were similar between the two intervention groups in both the SYNTAX and PRECOMBAT trials, and favored the CABG group in the EXCEL and NOBLE trials. The composite of death, stroke and myocardial infarction was similar in all trials. Mortality rates were similar across all trials except for the EXCEL trial at five years, which favored CABG. Cardiac mortality was similar in all trials. Stroke rates were similar, apart from the SYNTAX trial, which favored PCI. CABG was more favorable concerning myocardial infarction in the NOBLE trial, but not in the other trials. Repeat revascularization was generally less frequent in the CABG group. Stent thrombosis and graft occlusion were less frequent with PCI in the EXCEL trial, with no differences in the other trials. Based on the overall similarity in the primary endpoint rates, as well as favorable short-term outcomes, it is plausible to state that PCI can be considered a good alternative to CABG, although the higher risk of repeat revascularization should be taken into consideration.     

Comparisons of guideline-recommended therapies in patients with documented coronary artery disease having percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy only (from the REACH International Registry)

To evaluate current compliance with recommendations for medical therapy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), the relation between previous revascularization and use of guideline-recommended therapies was investigated. From 5,400 outpatient practices in 44 countries, we compared baseline characteristics and medical therapy of 40,450 patients with documented CAD (all with previous myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG], or angina pectoris) by previous revascularization status. Approximately 33% of patients had previous CABG, 33% had previous PCI, and 33% had no previous revascularization. Patients with previous CABG were older and often men and diabetic. Patients with previous PCI were the youngest. Guideline-recommended medical therapy use was significantly higher in those with previous revascularization. Antiplatelet therapy in medically managed patients was 80% versus 86% and 91% for those with previous CABG or PCI, respectively. Use of any lipid-lowering agent in those with previous CABG or PCI was 86% in the 2 groups versus 70% in patients who were medically managed. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were used in similar ratios among groups. Previous revascularization appears to be associated with better use of guideline-recommended medical treatment. These trends were similar for patients from the United States versus everywhere else. In conclusion, use of evidence-based, guideline-recommended therapies in outpatients with CAD needs to improve, especially in medically managed patients.     

Comparison of outcomes of unprotected left main versus multivessel coronary artery interventions

Left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as an appealing alternative to bypass surgery for significant LMCA disease, especially in high-risk candidates. PCI for unprotected LMCA stenosis is currently designated a class IIb indication. Direct comparisons between unprotected LMCA PCI and multivessel PCI are lacking. We aimed to determine the incremental risk associated with unprotected LMCA PCI compared to multivessel PCI. We queried the Cleveland Clinic PCI database to identify patients who underwent unprotected LMCA PCI from 2003 through 2009 and compared these to patients undergoing multivessel PCI in the same period. Patients undergoing PCI for acute myocardial infarction were excluded. Mortality was derived using the Social Security Death Index. Short-term (≤30-day) mortality rates in the LMCA PCI group (n = 468, 1.9%) were similar to the death rate in the multivessel PCI group (n = 1,973, 1.3%, p = 0.3). There was no significant difference in adjusted mortality between the 2 study groups. Stratifying LMCA PCI by the number of concomitant vessel territories treated, there was no significant difference in mortality in any LMCA PCI category (LMCA only, LMCA + 1-vessel PCI, LMCA + multivessel PCI) compared to multivessel PCI. In conclusion, there was comparable short-term and long-term mortality in the LMCA PCI and multivessel PCI groups. LMCA stenting did not appear to incur incremental risk compared to multivessel PCI.     

无保护左主干病变患者经皮介入治疗的即刻及远期疗效分析

目的探讨无保护左主干病变患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的近、远期疗效。方法解放军总医院2001年12月~2006年8月接受PCI的77例左主干病变的病例资料,2006年8月对上述患者进行随访,包括造影及电话随访。结果即刻成功率100%,无严重术中并发症,住院期间无死亡。术后随访0.5~54(12.95±10.31)个月,其中1例术后6个月行冠状动脉CT检查,支架内无狭窄;20例患者进行了冠状动脉造影检查,1例术后30天出现支架内亚急性血栓;10例分别在1~12个月造影时显示支架内再狭窄,其中4例发生在左主干支架内,其余再狭窄均发生在分叉远端,并分别进行了处理。其余患者进行了电话随访,1例复发心绞痛,接受药物治疗。结论对经过选择的无保护左主干病变患者进行支架置入是可行和安全的,并有良好的近、远期疗效。     

Bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of unprotected left main disease

Objective

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of de novo unprotected left main disease.

Background

Although CABG is accepted to be standard of care for revascularization of unprotected left main stenosis, PCI is increasingly being used as an alternative primary approach.

Methods

We searched for randomized, controlled trials comparing CABG and PCI for the treatment of unprotected left main disease. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization) were analyzed.

Results

The search strategy identified 4 randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 1,611 patients. Follow-up ranged between 1 and 2 years. There were no significant differences in the risk of death or myocardial infarction between the two treatment modalities. While the risk of stroke was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI (risk ratio (RR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.69, p?=?0.007), the risk of repeat revascularization was higher among patients undergoing PCI (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.43–2.61, p?<?0.001). No relevant statistical heterogeneity across studies could be found.

Conclusion

In this largest series of randomized patients with unprotected left main stenosis to date, the risk of death and myocardial infarction was comparable between CABG and PCI. However, patients undergoing CABG had a higher risk of stroke, whereas patients undergoing PCI were at a higher risk for repeat revascularization.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Data have emerged demonstrating the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the unprotected left main (ULM) artery. The 2009 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions focused guidelines for PCI no longer state that ULM PCI is contraindicated in patients with anatomic conditions that are associated with a low risk of procedural complications and clinical conditions that predict an increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes. ULM PCI should be performed by operators with experience in the management of the anatomic complexities of left main and multivessel disease, specifically in issues relating to bifurcation disease, calcification, and hemodynamic support. Patients with ostial or shaft disease have lower risk of restenosis compared with distal bifurcation disease. Drug‐eluting stents (DES) should be used whenever possible as they reduce clinical restenosis. Intravascular ultrasound is an integral component of the procedure as it provides accurate assessment of lesion severity and can confirm optimal stent expansion and apposition. Compliance with dual antiplatelet therapy for at least 12 months is essential if DES are used. A collaborative, multidisciplinary approach with a “Heart Team” represented by a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, and non‐invasive cardiologist may optimize patient education and objective decision making when obtaining informed consent. Application of clinical and angiographic variables into risk models facilitates appropriate patient selection. Randomized clinical trials will address unanswered issues and help build consensus between cardiology and surgical societies to inform clinical decision making and optimize the outcomes for patients with ULM coronary artery disease. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with left main disease

BACKGROUND: Multivessel off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been performed with favorable results in our institute. In this study, we analyzed the outcomes in patients who underwent off-pump CABG for left main disease, since the surgical outcomes for such patients have not been clarified. METHODS: Between March 1, 1999 and July 30, 2002, a total of 147 patients with left main disease (112 males and 35 females, mean age 66.9 +/- 9.8 years) underwent off-pump CABG. Perioperative and follow-up data were entered into a structured database and the results were analyzed. RESULTS: Urgent or emergent surgery was performed in 25 patients (17.0%), and a preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump was used in 12 patients (8.2%). The mean number of bypass grafts was 3.2 +/- 1.0, and complete revascularization was performed in 127 patients (86.4%). There were 4 incidences of intraoperative conversion from off-pump to on-pump surgery. The mean intubation period, intensive care unit stay and postoperative hospital stay were 9.4 +/- 13.0 h, 2.3 +/- 1.4 days and 13.4 +/- 7.3 days, respectively. There was 1 hospital death (0.7%). Postoperative myocardial infarction was observed in 2 patients (1.4%), postoperative stroke in 1 (0.7%), prolonged ventilator support in 5 (3.4%) and mediastinitis in 3 (2.0%). During the follow-up period of 2.1 +/- 1.0 years, there were 4 deaths and 7 cardiac events. The actuarial 3-year survival rate was 97.0%, and the event-free rate was 94.3%. CONCLUSION: Our observations support off-pump CABG as a surgical option with a favorable outcome for patients with left main disease.