无保护左主干病变血运重建的临床评价

冠脉旁路移植术为无保护左主干病变的首选治疗。随着经皮冠脉介入治疗技术的进步,在有选择的无保护左主干患者中,PCI与CABG的疗效相当。本文对无保护左主干病变几种血运重建方法进行综述。     

Percutaneous treatment of catheter‐induced dissection of the left main coronary artery and adjacent aortic wall: A case report

Left main coronary artery dissection complicating selective coronary angiography is uncommon. Moreover, aortic root dissection associated with coronary intervention is underreported and may require urgent surgical intervention. During percutaneous coronary angioplasty of a catheter‐induced left main coronary artery dissection, retrograde dissection of the adjacent aortic root occurred. Both were successfully treated by stenting of the left main coronary artery. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 49:86–89, 2000. © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Atresia of the left main coronary artery: Clinical recognition and surgical treatment

Atresia of the left main coronary artery is an extremely rare anomaly with very few cases presented in the literature. Even more uncommon are reports of successful surgical repair. This article concerns two cases of atresia of the left main coronary artery treated surgically with a favourable outcome. The two patients (a 16 year-old boy and a 43 year-old woman) had a different clinical presentation but identical angiographic and morphologic features. The authors examine the embryogenetic defect underlying this anomaly. The differential diagnosis involves two congenital malformations (single coronary artery and anomalous origin of the left coronary artery from the pulmonary trunk) and acquired atherosclerotic disease of the left main coronary artery; the distinguishing features of these conditions are reviewed. Surgical management by means of internal mammary artery revascularization is discussed in light of recent reports about adequacy of blood flow in internal mammary artery bypass grafts.     

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。     

Long‐term follow‐up after nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main coronary arteries

Objectives : To evaluate the long‐term outcomes of the selected patients by the local Heart Team to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis and to compare patients considered at low surgical risk versus at high surgical risk for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Background : CABG is recommended in patients with ULMCA stenosis according to the AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines, and there are limited data on the long‐term outcomes in patients selected by the local Heart Team to undergo PCI. Methods : Between 1996 and 2007, 227 patients underwent PCI for ULMCA stenosis based on decision of the local Heart Team and patient's and/or physician's preference. All patients were contacted at 1 year and in November 2008. Results : Long‐term follow‐up was up to 8 years with a mean of 3.9 ± 2.6 years. Overall, the Kaplan–Meier estimate of the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 14.8% at 1 year, 18.3% at 3 years, and 20.9% at 5 years with no events occurring thereafter. Patients considered at low surgical risk for CABG had a significantly lower incidence of cardiac death or MI compared to patients considered at high surgical risk at 8 years (1.4 vs. 16.8%; 1.4 vs. 14.8%, respectively); however, no significant difference was observed for cardiac death, MI, or TLR (18.6 vs. 24.4%). Conclusions : PCI of ULMCA stenosis in patients selected by the Heart Team resulted in good long‐term clinical outcomes with most events occurring within the 1st year. Patients considered at low surgical risk for CABG have a significantly better long‐term survival than patients at high risk for surgery. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparative long-term efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting in ostial left main coronary artery disease: analysis of the MAIN-COMPARE registry

Background : To date, drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation has not been compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for ostial left main coronary artery (LMCA) lesions. Methods : Of the 263 patients in the MAIN‐COMPARE registry with ostial LMCA stenosis, 123 were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES and 140 with CABG. We compared their 5‐year overall survival, composite outcomes of death, Q‐wave myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates. Results : Unadjusted analysis showed no significant differences between CABG and DES in overall survival rates (95% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio (HR): 0.44 to 1.77, P = 0.71), composite outcomes (death, Q‐wave MI, or stroke)‐free survival rates (95% CI for HR: 0.41–1.63, P = 0.56), and TVR‐free survival rates (95% CI for HR: 0.79–5.03, P = 0.14). Multivariate adjusted Cox regression analysis also showed no significant between‐group differences in TVR (95% CI for HR: 0.52–3.79, P = 0.49), death (95% CI for HR: 0.79–2.82, P = 0.22) and the composite of death, Q‐wave MI, or stroke (95% CI for HR: 0.65–2.57, P = 0.46). These results were sustained after propensity score adjustment and propensity score matching analysis. Conclusions : DES implantation for ostial LMCA lesions showed similar 5‐year outcomes of death, major adverse events, and TVR compared with CABG. Although meticulous adjustments decreased baseline difference between the two treatments, the absence of statistical significance could be attributable to the size of the study sample and hidden bias. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Long term outcomes of drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

Background It is still controversial whether percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent (DES) is safe and effective compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease at long-term follow up (≥ 3 years). Methods Eligible studies were selected by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to December 6, 2016. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke during the longest follow-up. Death, cardiac death, MI, stroke and repeat revascularization were the secondary outcomes. Results Four randomized controlled trials and twelve adjusted observational studies involving 14,130 patients were included. DES was comparable to CABG regarding the occurrence of the primary endpoint (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86-1.03). Besides, DES was significantly associated with higher incidence of MI (HR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.09-2.22) and repeat revascularization (HR = 3.09, 95% CI: 2.33-4.10) compared with CABG, while no difference was found between the two strategies regard as the rate of death, cardiac death and stroke. Furthermore, DES can reduce the risk of the composite endpoint of death, MI or stroke (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.95) for ULMCA lesions with SYNTAX score ≤ 32. Conclusions Although with higher risk of repeat revascularization, PCI with DES appears to be as safe as CABG for ULMCA disease at long-term follow up. In addition, treatment with DES could be an alternative interventional strategy to CABG for ULMCA lesions with low to intermediate anatomic complexity.     

Percutaneous revascularization of left main

Refinement of interventional techniques, adjunctive pharmacological therapy, and the introduction of drug‐eluting stents have fostered new interest for the percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. Several observational registries, some randomized trials and several meta‐analyses have consistently shown no difference in mortality and myocardial infarction between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with ULMCA stenosis, but a higher rate of target vessel revascularization in patients treated with PCI. As a consequence, PCI of ULMCA stenosis has been upgraded to class IIa or IIb indication in the current European or American practice guidelines. However, several critical issues should be properly addressed when pursuing a percutaneous strategy for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis, such as the use of IVUS for procedural guidance, assessment of disease location, optimal technique for distal ULMCA stenosis, risk of stent thrombosis, optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy, and the most appropriate strategy for post‐procedure follow up. Multidisciplinary team approach remains essential to provide a balanced information to the patient and to offer the beast treatment option. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Predictors of improvement in left ventricular function after initially successful angioplasty of unprotected left main coronary artery stenoses

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been increasingly applied to unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) lesions, with varied procedural success and clinical outcomes. However, the effect of PCI on left ventricular performance is still unclear, and there are no clinical studies assessing factors that influence left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in these cases. METHODS: Between April 1986 and August 2002, de novo PCI was performed for unprotected LMCA stenoses in 199 patients. Close clinical and angiographic follow-up were conducted after the procedure. RESULTS: One hundred eighty patients survived over six months and analysis of paired left ventriculography was possible in 175 patients. Improvement in LVEF was observed in the entire population (52.9?±?15.7% to 56.1?±?14.3%, p?= 0.048). The LVEF change was 6.7?± 9.5% (p?&lt;?0.01) in group with baseline LVEF?≤??50% and 0.7?±?6.7 % (p?=?NS) in group with LVEF?&gt;?50%. There was significant intergroup difference (p?&lt;?0.001). Patients with baseline diameter stenosis ≥60% had an improvement of 5.3?±?8.3% (p?&lt;?0.05) whereas those with stenosis?&lt;?60% had no improvement (2.0?±?8.4%, p?=?NS). CK-MB elevation ≥3 times normal after PCI had a significant inverse association with improvement in LVEF (p?&lt;?0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed baseline LVEF ≤?50% was the only independent predictor of improvement in LVEF (standard estimate?=?3.509, 95% CI: 2.164-4.854, p?&lt;?0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Successful PCI procedure is associated with significant improvement in LVEF, especially in patients with depressed left ventricular function. (Int J Cardiovasc Intervent 2004; 6: 119-127)     

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。     

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 unprotected left main coronary artery disease: Strategy selection and systematic risk assessment

Refinement of interventional techniques, adjunctive pharmacological therapy, and the introduction of drug eluting stents have fostered new interest for the percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. Several observational registries, some randomized controlled trials and several meta‐analyses have consistently shown no difference in mortality and myocardial infarction between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with ULMCA stenosis, but a higher rate of target vessel revascularization in patients treated with PCI. As a consequence, PCI of ULMCA stenosis has been upgraded to class IIa or IIb indication in the current European or American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association practice guidelines. Although these results are promising, they do not still represent enough evidence for extending PCI of ULMCA stenosis to current clinical practice. The EXCEL trial will address the value of PCI in relation to CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis in more than 2000 patients. A major breakthrough of the SYNTAX trial has been the demonstration of an interaction between the coronary complexity and the revascularization strategy, suggesting that optimal risk stratification is a key element when deciding the best strategy of revascularization in this high‐risk group of patients. Multidisciplinary team approach remains essential to provide a balanced information to the patient and to offer the beast treatment option. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Left main coronary artery ostial stenosis: Clinical markers,angiographic recognition and distinction from left main disease

Among 1254 patients with coronary artery occlusive disease (CAOD) who underwent cardiac catheterization studies in our laboratory from 1975 through 1977, 114 (9%) had significant (≥50%) stenosis of the left main coronary artery (LMCA). Thirty-four of the 114 (29.8%) had stenosis of the LMCA ostium (2.7% of all CAOD patients). Clinical, hemodynamic, and angiographic data of the 34 patients were analyzed. Unstable angina was more frequent in these patients, most of whom were in functional classes III and IV, than those with other LMCA lesions. Of the 18 who underwent treadmill exercise testing, results were positive in 16 (11 of whom had ST segment depression ≥2 mm Hg), negative in none and indeterminate in two. By avoiding overlapping the coronary ostium with the sinus of Valsalva without significant foreshortening of the LMCA during angiography, LMCA ostial stenosis was recognizable in all patients in the moderate left anterior oblique position only and not in other projections. Coronary arteriography was performed without occurrence of ventricular fibrillation, infarction, or any other morbidity or mortality in the 34, as well as in the entire group of 114 patients with LMCA disease. To ensure a safe procedure, left ventricular filling pressure was monitored constantly via a catheter in the pulmonary artery, and patients experiencing sharp increases following coronary injections were promptly treated with nitroglycerine. Coronary artery bypass, with an average of 3.2 grafts per patient, was performed in 30 patients with a survival of 97% and only one death in a patient who underwent aortic valve replacement and triple bypass. Stenosis of the ostium of the LMCA is not an uncommon lesion in patients with CAOD and should be suspected in all patients whose symptoms are severe. Coronary angiography, performed with adequate precautions, as well as aortocoronary bypass, can be accomplished successfully.     

Submitral left ventricular aneurysm compressing the left main coronary artery

This report describes a 43-yr-old black woman who was referred for evaluation of severe mitral regurgitation. Conventional echocardiography revealed a large submitral left ventricular aneurysm. A selective coronary angiography demonstrated compression of the left main coronary artery by submitral aneurysm. Successful surgical repair was performed. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Diagn. 40:173–175, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

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.