冠心病多支血管病不同治疗方法的疗效分析

目的 :观察不同治疗方法对冠心病多支血管病患者的临床疗效。方法 :对我院 1993年至1998年期间的 10 5 5例分别进行药物治疗、经皮冠状动脉腔内介入术 (PCI)或冠状动脉旁路手术 (CABG)治疗的冠心病患者进行随访研究。结果 :1.从远期疗效看 ,多支血管病变的终点事件发生率PCI组为9 10 % ,CABG组为 5 6 6 % ,药物治疗为 15 34% (P =0 0 3) ,3组间存在显著性差异 ;且多支血管病变的心绞痛复发率PCI组为 4 0 91% ,CABG为 2 9 2 5 % ,药物治疗为 4 8 5 7% ,(P =0 0 0 6 ) ,3组间存在显著性差异。其中CABG的心绞痛复发率显著低于PCI组 (P =0 0 4 1)。 2 .从近期疗效看 ,多支血管病的近期死亡与总终点事件的发生率CABG组最高 ,显著高于PCI和药物治疗组 (P <0 0 5 )。结论 :多支血管病的血运重建治疗与药物治疗比较 ,其远期的终点事件发生率低于药物治疗组 ,心绞痛复发率CABG组显著低于PCI与药物治疗组 ,近期终点事件发生率CABG组显著高于PCI组和药物治疗组。     

无保护左主干开口/体部病变患者血运重建术的长期预后

目的:本研究旨在比较无保护左主干开口/体部病变接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)或冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的长期预后。方法:入选2003-01至2009-07北京安贞医院行PCI或CABG治疗的无保护左主干开口/体部病变259例。其中行PCI(仅置入药物洗脱支架)149例(PCI组),行CABG治疗110例(CABG组)。研究终点包括全因死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、卒中、再次血运重建、心原性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点以及主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE,包括心原性死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、卒中及再次血运重建的联合终点)。结果:随访时间中位数7.1年(四分位间距5.3,8.2年),在无保护左主干开口/体部病变人群中,校正前PCI组和CABG组两组间全因死亡(12.7%vs 29.7%;P=0.096)、非致命性心肌梗死(14.8%vs 8.5%;P=0.844)、卒中(9.3%vs 6.3%;P=0.904)、再次血运重建(26.8%vs 19.0%;P=0.234)、心原性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点(18.9%vs20.3%;P=0.224)、MACCE(37.5%vs 34.2%;P=0.946)发生率差异均无统计学意义,校正后结果与校正前趋势相同。结论:在最长达8.2年的随访期内,对于无保护左主干开口/体部病变,PCI和CABG具有相当的有效性和安全性。     

左主干病变合并慢性肾脏病患者血运重建术的长期预后

目的:探讨左主干病变合并慢性肾脏病(CKD)患者血运重建术的预后.方法:入选北京安贞医院行经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)或者冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗的无保护左主干病变合并慢性肾脏病患者240例,其中PCI组121例,CABG组119例.研究终点为全因死亡、心肌梗死、卒中、再次血运重建.结果:随访时间中位数6.1...     

75岁以上冠心病患者不同治疗方法的疗效比较

目的　比较老年冠心病患者采用单纯药物、经皮冠状动脉介入术 (PCI)或冠状动脉旁路移植术 (CABG)的近期及远期疗效。　方法　回顾性分析我院 2 0 0 0～ 2 0 0 2年间的年龄 75岁以上冠心病患者 195例 ,其中单纯药物治疗 6 4例 ,行PCI75例 ,行CABG5 6例。 2 0 0 3年 6～ 7月对上述患者进行了随访 ,共随访到 137例 ,平均 (17 5± 8 8)个月 ,随访率为 70 %。观察其死亡、非致死性心肌梗死及再次行心肌血运重建术 (包括PCI和CABG)等心脏事件的发生情况。　结果　近期病死率 :CABG组 (10 7% ,6 / 5 6 )高于药物治疗组 (0 % )和PCI组 (2 7% ,2 / 75 ) ,差异有显著性 (P <0 0 5 )。PCI和药物治疗组比较 ,差异无显著性 ;远期疗效中 ,药物治疗组的病死率 (2 8 6 % )明显高于PCI组(3 9% )和CABG组 (14 3% ) ,CABG组的血运重建率为 0 ,明显低于PCI组 (13 7% )和药物治疗组(4 8% ) ,差异有显著性 (P <0 0 5 )。　结论　冠状动脉血运重建术可显著提高老年冠心病患者的远期生存率 ,而PCI的近期病死率低、风险小 ,可取得较理想的疗效。     

2型糖尿病对冠状动脉左主干病变介入治疗预后的影响

目的:探讨合并2型糖尿病对接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的冠状动脉左主干病变患者预后的影响。方法:回顾性分析中国医学科学院阜外医院2004年1月至2015年12月接受PCI的冠状动脉左主干病变的患者3960例。根据患者是否合并2型糖尿病分为糖尿病组(1084例)和非糖尿病组(2876)例。收集纳入患者的临床资料、实验室检查、冠状动脉造影及介入操作资料。所有患者在1、6、9个月及1、2、3年时通过门诊或电话随访。主要研究终点为主要不良心血管事件(MACE),包括全因死亡、心肌梗死和血运重建。次要终点包括支架血栓和靶病变失败(TLF),后者包括心原性死亡,靶血管心肌梗死和缺血驱动的靶病变血运重建。采用多因素Cox回归分析探讨2型糖尿病是否影响冠状动脉左主干病变行PCI后的近、远期预后。结果:糖尿病组和非糖尿病组患者中分别有1038例(95.8%)、2766例(96.2%)患者完成了3年随访。(1)MACE:与非糖尿病组比较,糖尿病组MACE发生率偏高[15.32%(159例)vs.14.14%(391例)],但差异无统计学意义(P=0.35);两组全因死亡、心肌梗死、所有的血运重建发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义,虽然血运重建的发生率糖尿病组高于非糖尿病组[10.31%(107例)vs.8.46%(234例)],但差异无统计学意义(P=0.08)。(2)次要终点:与非糖尿病组比较,糖尿病组TLF的发生率差异也无统计学意义[8.29%(86例)vs.7.52%(208例),P=0.43]。糖尿病组靶病变血运重建发生率高于非糖尿病组[4.14%(43例)vs.2.78%(77例),P=0.03],差异有统计学意义。但经过多因素Cox分析后,糖尿病并非靶病变血运重建的独立危险因素(HR=0.94,95%CI:0.48~1.87,P=0.84)。结论:冠状动脉左主干病变合并2型糖尿病患者PCI后随访3年MACE的发生率与非糖尿病患者无明显差异。未发现糖尿病是冠状动脉左主干病变患者PCI后血运重建的独立危险因素。     

高龄无保护左主干病变患者血运重建术的长期预后

目的:本研究旨在对比经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗高龄(≥65岁)无保护左主干病变(ULMCA)的长期预后。方法:入选2003年1月至2009年7月,北京安贞医院行PCI或CABG治疗的高龄(≥65岁)ULMCA患者427例(210例行PCI置入药物洗脱支架,217例行CABG),研究终点包括全因死亡、心肌梗死、再次血运重建、卒中、心源性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点以及主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE,包括心原性死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、卒中及再次血运重建的联合终点)。Cox比例风险模型用以计算风险比(HR)及95%可信区间(CI),及多因素分析。结果:随访时间7.0(5.2,8.1)年,校正前结果显示,心源性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点发生率CABG组显著高于PCI组(HR=1.544,95%CI:1.003～2.375,P=0.048)。卒中发生率CABG组显著高于PCI组(HR=3.089,95%CI:1.332～7.162,P=0.009)。再次血运重建发生率PCI组显著高于CABG组(HR=0.278,95%CI:0.159～0.486,P0.001)。全因死亡率两组间差异无统计学意义(HR=1.545,95%CI:0.951～2.510,P=0.079)。非致命性心肌梗死发生率两组间差异无统计学意义(HR=0.619,95%CI:0.314～1.222,P=0.167)。MACCE发生率两组间差异无统计学意义(HR=0.770,95%CI:0.550～1.079;P=0.129)。经Cox多因素分析校正后,CABG组心源性死亡/心肌梗死/卒中联合硬终点发生率仍显著高于PCI组(P=0.048),CABG组卒中发生率显著高于PCI组(P=0.011),PCI组MACCE发生率显著高于CABG组(P=0.027),主要由于PCI组较CABG组显著升高的再次血运重建率(P0.001),死亡、心肌梗死经校正后两组间差异无统计学意义。结论:CABG较PCI治疗高龄ULMCA患者的卒中发生率及心源性死亡、卒中、心肌梗死联合终点发生率显著升高,PCI组再次血运重建率显著升高。     

糖尿病对无保护左冠状动脉主干病变患者不同血运重建术的影响

目的探讨糖尿病对经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)或冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)治疗无保护左冠状动脉主干(左主干)病变的影响是否存在差异。方法回顾性分析北京安贞医院2003年1月~2007年7月间入院明确诊断冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病(冠心病)患者922例,其按治疗方式不同分组,PCI使用药物洗脱支架(DES)与CABG治疗无保护左主干病变患者(PCI组465例,CABG组457例),分别在糖尿病人群中和无糖尿病人群中比较PCI和CABG两组间死亡、心肌梗死、再次血运重建等不良事件发生率。结果随访中位数7.1年,多因素校正后无论是否合并糖尿病,PCI和CABG两组死亡率(合并糖尿病P=0.41;非糖尿病P=0.25)及死亡、心肌梗死、卒中联合终点发生风险(合并糖尿病HR=0.79,P=0.40;非糖尿病HR=0.82,P=0.35)无统计学差异,PCI组再次血运重建发生率显著高于CABG组(糖尿病HR=2.11,P=0.02;非糖尿病HR=2.37,P0.001),而CABG组卒中发生风险显著高于PCI组(糖尿病HR=0.23,P=0.02;非糖尿病HR=0.40,P=0.02)。结论糖尿病在治疗无保护左主干病变血运重建策略选择中不是独立影响因素。     

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。     

老年女性左主干病变患者血运重建5年随访结果分析

目的分析年龄≥60岁女性左主干病变血运重建患者5年生存情况。方法收集解放军总医院第六医学中心2013年1月～2015年12月收治的年龄≥60岁连续女性左主干病变患者46例,根据血运重建方法分为PCI组14例和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)组32例,收集入选者一般临床资料,观察主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生情况。结果 PCI组2例死亡,1例因脑梗死卧床,3例偶有心悸、胸闷,口服药物好转,不影响日常生活。CABG组2例失访,3例随访到2018年,3例术后院内死亡,1例随访期间乳腺癌死亡,1例术后5年行PCI。PCI组与CABG组MACE发生率及生存时间比较,无统计学差异[21.4%vs 20.0%,P=0.955;(75.3±3.1)个月vs(81.2±5.5)个月,P=0.974]。结论对于左主干病变患者,CABG仍是首选的血运重建方式,对于经过选择的老年女性左主干病变患者,PCI是一种可接受的血运重建方式。     

BP?SES与DP?EES在冠状动脉中重度钙化小血管病变介入治疗的效果及近远期疗效分析

目的 回顾性对比分析可吸收聚合物西罗莫司洗脱支架(BP?SES)与耐用聚合物依维莫司洗脱支架(DP?EES)在冠状动脉中重度钙化小血管病变介入治疗的效果及近远期疗效。方法 以289例冠状动脉中重度钙化小血管病变接受PCI治疗的患者为回顾性研究对象。根据PCI术实际操作情况分为BP-SES组(共174例,接受PCI术植入BP?SES治疗)和DP-EES组(共115例,接受PCI术植入DP?EES治疗),统计所有病例的双联抗血小板药物应用时间,并以近期(1年随访)和远期(3年随访)的主要终点事件和次要终点事件为疗效观察指标。结果 BP-SES组的双联抗血小板药物应用时间低于DP-EES组,差异具有统计学意义(t =19.921,P=0.000)。BP-SES组和DP-EES组近期(1年随访)的主要终点事件(全部心肌梗死、全因死亡、全部血运重建)、次要终点事件(靶病变再次血运重建、非致死性心肌梗死、缺血性卒中)发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(X2=0.074~0.389;P=0.384~0.922)。BP-SES组的远期(3年随访)的主要终点事件主要终点事件(全部心肌梗死、全因死亡、全部血运重建)、次要终点事件(靶病变再次血运重建、非致死性心肌梗死、缺血性卒中)发生率低于DP-EES组,差异具有统计学意义(X2=5.958~9.084;P=0.001,0.0036)。结论 BP?SES治疗冠状动脉中重度钙化小血管病变的远期临床效果优于DP?EES,并且能明显缩短术后双联抗血小板药物应用时间。     

Predictors of long‐term outcomes after bypass grafting versus drug‐eluting stent implantation for left main or multivessel coronary artery disease

Background : We assessed predictors of long‐term outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus those after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) in 3,230 patients with left main or multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and Results : Data were pooled from the BEST, PRECOMBAT, and SYNTAX trials. Age, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, left ventricular dysfunction, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) were common predictors of all‐cause mortality. Diabetes mellitus, previous myocardial infarction (MI), and SYNTAX score were independent predictors of all‐cause mortality in the PCI group, but not in the CABG group. In the CABG group, age was the only risk factor for MI; left ventricular dysfunction, hypertension, and PAD were risk factors for stroke. On the other hand, in the PCI group, incomplete revascularization and previous MI were risk factors for MI; age and previous stroke for stroke. In addition, chronic kidney disease significantly correlated with a composite outcome of death, MI, or stroke in the CABG group, and incomplete revascularization and previous MI in the PCI group. Conclusions : Simple clinical variables and SYNTAX score differentially predict long‐term outcomes after CABG versus those after PCI with DES for left main or multivessel CAD. Those predictors might help to guide the choice of revascularization strategy. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Comparison between coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (the Bologna Registry)

Although great interest exists in the relative efficacy of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, data comparing the 2 strategies are scant. Furthermore, no comparison has ever been performed between CABG and drug-eluting stents in this setting. From January 2002 to June 2005, 154 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis underwent CABG and 157 underwent PCI. Ninety-four patients received a drug-eluting stent in the left main artery. After a median follow-up of 430 days, the rate of mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization was 12.3%, 4.5%, and 2.6%, respectively, in the CABG group and 13.4%, 8.3%, and 25.5%, respectively, in the PCI group (death and myocardial infarction p = NS, target lesion revascularization p = 0.0001). Although patients treated with drug-eluting stents had a 25% relative risk reduction in the rate of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization compared with patients treated with bare stents, event-free survival was still better for patients treated with CABG. In the multivariate analysis, age >or=70 years, New York Heart Association classes III and IV, acute coronary syndromes, and peripheral vascular disease were the only independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, our results have indicated that at long-term follow-up no difference exists in the rate of mortality and myocardial infarction between PCI and CABG for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. However, the rate of target lesion revascularization was higher in the PCI group.     

Comparison of Long-Term Outcome After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease (from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2)

The long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) remains to be investigated. We identified 1,005 patients with ULMCAD of 15,939 patients with first coronary revascularization enrolled in the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2. Cumulative 3-year incidence of a composite of death/myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (22.7% vs 14.8%, p = 0.0006, log-rank test). However, the adjusted outcome was not different between the PCI and CABG groups (hazard ratio [HR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 2.15, p = 0.30). Stratified analysis using the SYNTAX score demonstrated that risk for a composite of death/MI/stroke was not different between the 2 treatment groups in patients with low (<23) and intermediate (23 to 33) SYNTAX scores (adjusted HR 1.70, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.76, p = 0.19; adjusted HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.99, p = 0.72, respectively), whereas in patients with a high SYNTAX score (≥33), it was significantly higher after PCI than after CABG (adjusted HR 2.61, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.16, p = 0.006). In conclusion, risk of PCI for serious adverse events seemed to be comparable to that after CABG in patients with ULMCAD with a low or intermediate SYNTAX score, whereas PCI compared with CABG was associated with a higher risk for serious adverse events in patients with a high SYNTAX score.     

冠状动脉旁路移植术和药物支架植入术远期疗效的比较

目的比较冠心病患者非药物治疗手段冠状动脉旁路移植术（CABG）和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）术后的桥血管和支架的再通率。方法CABG术后和药物支架植入术后再次出现心绞痛症状的冠心病患者各40例,其年龄、性别、心肌梗死、高血压、高脂血症、心功能不全、脑卒中、药物治疗病史具有可比性。通过冠状动脉造影术比较两组患者的桥血管和药物支架的效率和寿命的远期效果。结果与行CABG患者的桥血管比较,行PCI患者的药物支架远期狭窄或者闭塞率降低34．3％。与行CABG患者的左乳内动脉（LIMA）桥血管比较,行PCI患者的左前降支的药物支架远期狭窄或者闭塞率降低14．8％。与行CABG患者的左回旋支和右冠状动脉静脉桥血管比较,行PCI患者的左回旋支以及右冠状动脉的药物支架远期狭窄或者闭塞率降低49．8％。结论冠状动脉药物支架植入术的远期通畅率较CABG明显增高,冠状动脉药物支架植入术的药物支架的效率和寿命要优于CABG的桥血管。     

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 one-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes (from the CUSTOMIZE Registry)

Uncertainty surrounds the optimal revascularization strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs), and adequately sized specific comparisons of percutaneous and surgical revascularization in this scenario are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in patients with left main coronary artery disease and ACS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and drug-eluting stent implantation or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). A total of 583 patients were included. At 1 year, MACEs were significantly higher in patients treated with PCI (n = 222) compared to those treated with CABG (n = 361, 14.4% vs 5.3%, p <0.001), driven by a higher rate of target lesion revascularization (8.1% vs 1.7%, p = 0.001). This finding was consistent after statistical adjustment for MACEs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 5.9, p = 0.01) and target lesion revascularization (adjusted HR 8.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 28.7, p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences between PCI and CABG were noted for death (adjusted HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 3.0, p = 0.81) and myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 4.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 68.6, p = 0.25). No interaction between clinical presentation (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) and treatment (PCI or CABG) was observed (p for interaction = 0.68). In conclusion, in patients with left main coronary artery disease and ACS, PCI is associated with similar safety compared to CABG but higher risk of MACEs driven by increased risk of repeat revascularization.     

The Current State of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Purpose of Review

While coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of care, advances in stenting technology and procedural technique are changing the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of severe left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. We review contemporary evidence comparing PCI and CABG for the treatment of severe LMCA disease, discuss optimal techniques during left main PCI, and provide guidance on studied revascularization strategies within specific patient subgroups.

Recent Findings

Results from randomized control trials of patients treated with PCI or CABG for severe LMCA disease demonstrate comparable short- and mid-term rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke, but increased rates of repeat or target-vessel revascularization after PCI. Though extended follow-up data has suggested lower long-term rates of MI and stroke in patients with severe LMCA disease treated with CABG, results from patients undergoing PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) demonstrate non-inferiority in these outcomes. These findings are generalizable to patients with severe LMCA disease having low to intermediate anatomic complexity. Intravascular ultrasound and double kissing (DK) crush stenting also reduce adverse event rates among patients undergoing left main PCI and improve long-term outcomes.

Summary

In patients with severe LMCA disease having low to intermediate anatomic complexity, both CABG and PCI with second-generation DES are effective methods of revascularization with comparable long-term rates of death, MI, and stroke. The roles of multi-vessel coronary artery disease and anatomic complexity on long-term outcomes after CABG or PCI for severe LMCA disease remain under investigation.

     

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。     

Revascularization of left main coronary artery disease

Coronary artery disease with left main stenosis is associated with the highest mortality of any coronary lesion. Studies in the 1970s and 1980s comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and medical therapy showed a significant survival benefit with revascularization. In the angioplasty era, initial experience with percutaneous intervention was associated with poor clinical outcomes. As a result, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was restricted to patients who were considered inoperable, or those with prior CABG with a functional graft to the left anterior descending or circumflex artery ("protected left main disease"). With the introduction of drug-eluting stents, there are new studies demonstrating comparable survival in patients who were revascularized using PCI and CABG, although percutaneous revascularization is associated with a higher rate of repeat revascularization. In the SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial, the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke was similar between the CABG and PCI groups; however, the stroke rate was higher in the CABG group. The degree and extent of disease as defined by the SYNTAX scoring system has allowed for stratification of risk and improved assignment of patients with left main stenosis to either PCI or CABG.     

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.