Multivessel vs single-vessel revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease in the drug-eluting stent era

Background:

We sought to compare long‐term outcomes for multivessel revascularization (MVR) vs single‐vessel revascularization (SVR) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) in patients with non–ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE‐ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD).

Hypothesis:

In DES era, MVR would improve long‐term clinical outcomes in patients with NSTE‐ACS.

Methods:

We studied 179 patients undergoing MVR and 187 patients undergoing SVR for NSTE‐ACS and MVD. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularization.

Results:

During follow‐up (median 36 months), MACE occurred in 96 patients (26.2%); 35 (19.6%) in the MVR group and 61 (32.6%) in the SVR group (P = 0.003). In multivariate analysis, MVR was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30–0.85) and revascularization (HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.24–0.78), but not of death (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.25–1.93) and myocardial infarction (HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.11–1.47). The incidence of periprocedural renal dysfunction was not significantly different between patients undergoing MVR vs SVR (3.4% vs 1.6%, P = 0.33). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred at a similar rate (2.2% in the MVR group and 2.7% in the SVR group, P = 0.99).

Conclusions:

In patients with NSTE‐ACS and MVD, MVR using drug‐eluting stents may reduce MACE. Our findings should be confirmed by a prospective, randomized trial. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This work was supported by Sungkyunkwan University Foundation for Corporate Collaboration (2008‐1366‐000) and the IN‐SUNG Foundation for Medical Research, Republic of Korea (CA88161). The authors have no other funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

Culprit Lesion Detection in Patients Presenting With Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease

Background/purposeIdentification of the culprit lesion in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) allows appropriate coronary revascularization but may be unclear in patients with multivessel coronary disease (MVD). Therefore, we investigated the rate of culprit lesion identification during coronary angiography in NSTE-ACS and multivessel disease.Methods/materialsConsecutive patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD, between January 2012 and December 2016 were evaluated. Coronary angiograms, intravascular imaging, and ECGs were analyzed for culprit lesion identification. Long-term clinical outcomes in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and mortality were reported in patients with or without culprit identification.ResultsA total of 1107 patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD were included in the analysis, 310 (28.0%) with unstable angina and 797 (72.0%) with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. The culprit lesion was angiographically identified in 952 (86.0%) patients, while no clear culprit lesion was found in 155 (14.0%) patients. ECG analysis allowed to predict the location of the culprit vessel with low sensitivity (range 28.4%–36.7%) and high specificity (range 90.6%–96.5%). Higher lesion complexity was associated with inability to identify the culprit. Intravascular imaging was applied in 55 patients and helped to identify the culprit lesion in 53 patients (96.4%). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (21.4% vs. 25.8%, p = 0.24) and MACE (39.2% vs. 47.6%, p = 0.07) between the cohorts with or without culprit lesion identification by angiography.ConclusionsThe culprit lesion appeared unclear by coronary angiography in >10% of patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD. Complementary invasive imaging substantially enhanced the diagnostic accuracy of culprit lesion detection.     

Early angio-guided complete revascularization versus culprit vessel PCI followed by ischemia-guided staged PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease

Background: Optimal management of multivessel disease (MVD) in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still unclear. Objectives: To compare short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes of early‐staged, angio‐guided approach and delayed, ischemia‐guided treatment of non‐infarct‐related arteries (IRAs). Methods: Consecutive patients with STEMI and MVD treated with primary PCI in 6 tertiary care centers were retrospectively selected and analyzed. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as the composite end‐point of death, MI, and repeat revascularization. All the events were adjudicated according to the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) definitions. Results: In the time period 2004–2008, 800 primary PCIs in STEMI patients with MVD were performed. Four hundred and seventeen were addressed to early‐staged, angio‐guided PCI of non‐IRAs (CR group) and 383 to an incomplete revascularization (IncR group). During the hospital stay, no difference in terms of death and repeat revascularization was found between groups but the incidence of periprocedural MI/reinfarction and MACE was significantly higher in the CR group (13.9% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.01 and 14.1% vs. 9.1%, P = 0.017, respectively). At a mean follow‐up of 642 ± 545 days, no difference in terms of death and MI was found between the CR and IncR group. The MACE‐free survival was significantly higher in the IncR group (73.8% vs. 57%, log rank 0.05), mainly driven by the lower incidence of re‐PCI. Conclusions: Early complete revascularization based only on angiographic findings in patients with STEMI and MVD is associated with an excess of periprocedural/re‐MI and with a significantly higher incidence of MACE at follow‐up. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:535–541)     

In unstable angina or non-ST-segment acute coronary syndrome, should patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergo multivessel or culprit-only stenting?

OBJECTIVES: We examined the safety and efficacy of nonculprit multivessel compared with culprit-only stenting in patients with multivessel disease presenting with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes [NSTE-ACS]). BACKGROUND: In patients presenting with NSTE-ACS, multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with adverse outcome. METHODS: Patients with multivessel CAD and NSTE-ACS that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were included. The culprit lesion was defined by reviewing each patient's angiographic report, electrocardiogram, echocardiogram and, if available, nuclear stress test. All patients had at least 2 vessels with > or =50% stenosis, and the angiographic severity of CAD was assessed using the Duke Prognostic Angiographic Score. Patients with coronary bypass grafts, chronic total occlusions, and those with uncertain culprit lesions were excluded. Our end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or any target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: From January 1995 to June 2005, 1,240 patients with ACS and multivessel CAD underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stenting and met our study criteria. Of these, 479 underwent multivessel and 761 underwent culprit-only stenting. There were 442 events during a median follow-up of 2.3 years. Multivessel intervention was associated with lower death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization after both adjusting for baseline and angiographic characteristics (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.99; p = 0.04) and propensity matched analysis (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.88; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel CAD presenting with NSTE-ACS, multivessel intervention was significantly associated with a lower revascularization rate, which translated to a lower incidence of the composite end point compared with culprit-only stenting.     

Meta-analysis Comparing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients With Multivessel or Left Main Disease

Outcomes of patients presenting with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) with multivessel coronary disease (MVD) and/or unprotected left main coronary artery disease (CAD) revascularized with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is not well defined. MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE/Ovid were queried for studies that investigated PCI vs CABG in this disease subset. The primary outcome was major cardiac adverse events (MACE) at 30 days and long-term follow-up (3-5 years). The final analysis included 9 studies with a total of 9299 patients. No significant difference was observed between PCI and CABG in 30 days MACE (risk ratio [RR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-2.39, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. A meta-regression analysis revealed patients with a history of PCI had higher risk of MACE with PCI as compared with CABG. At long-term follow-up, PCI compared with CABG was associated with higher risk of MACE (RR 1.52; 95% CI 1.28-1.81), myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, while no difference was observed in the risk of stroke and all-cause mortality. In patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD or unprotected left main CAD, no differences were observed in the clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG at 30 days follow-up. With long-term follow-up, PCI was associated with a higher risk of MACE.     

Complete versus incomplete revascularization for treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era

Limited data exist regarding the impact of complete revascularization (CR) versus incomplete revascularization (IR) on the long-term outcomes of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. We compared major adverse cardiac events [MACE: death, myocardial infarction (MI), or any revascularization] in 873 patients and in 255 pairs generated by propensity-score matching. CR was performed in 427 patients (48.9%) and IR in 446 (51.1%). While the amount of myocardium at risk by the APPROACH score was similar between two groups (56.0?±?14.4 vs. 56.7?±?16.1, p?=?0.49), the SYNTAX score was lower in the CR group than in the IR group (20.7?±?9.4 vs. 23.3?±?10.7, p?<?0.01). MACE occurred in 203 patients (23.3%) during a median follow-up of 35?months. CR was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46–0.88; p?<?0.01) and revascularization (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.42–0.90; p?=?0.01), but not of death (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.48–1.57; p?=?0.64) and MI (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.23–1.67; p?=?0.35). The incidence of periprocedural MI and stent thrombosis was similar in two groups (4.7% in the CR group vs. 3.6% in the IR group, p?=?0.42; 1.6 vs. 1.3%, p?=?0.72, respectively). After propensity-score matching, patients with CR had fewer MACE and revascularization than those with IR. In patients with MVD, CR strategy using drug-eluting stents could reduce repeat revascularization with similar death, MI, and stent thrombosis risk compared with IR strategy.     

Coronary artery stenting in the elderly: short-term outcome and long-term angiographic and clinical follow-up

Objectives. This study sought to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of elderly patients undergoing coronary artery stenting with those of younger patients and to determine the long-term clinical outcome and survival of elderly patients post stent implantation.Background. Elderly patients undergoing coronary revascularization are considered a high-risk group. Few data exist that relate the results of stenting in treating coronary artery disease in the elderly population.Methods. All elderly patients ≥75 years of age who underwent coronary artery stenting between March 1993 and July 1997 (n = 137) at our center were compared to the patients <75 who underwent coronary artery stenting during the same time period (n = 2,551). Long-term clinical follow-up and survival were determined for the elderly group.Results. Elderly patients presented with lower ejection fractions (54% vs. 58%, p = 0.0001), more unstable angina (47% vs. 28%, p = 0.0001), and more multivessel disease (78% vs. 62%, p = 0.0001) than younger patients. These older patients had higher rates of procedure related complications including procedural myocardial infarction (MI) (2.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.2), emergency CABG (3.7% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.04), and death (2.2% vs. 0.12%, p = 0.0001). Angiographic follow-up, obtained in both groups, demonstrated significantly higher restenosis rates in the elderly versus younger patients (47% vs. 28%, p = 0.0007). Longer term clinical follow-up, which was obtained only in the elderly group, showed that at a mean follow-up period of 12 months post coronary stenting, elderly survival free from death, MI, revascularization and angina was 54% and that their overall survival was 91%. Subanalysis of the elderly patients who died showed much higher incidence of combined unstable angina (80%), prior MI (60%), lower ejection fraction (46%), multivessel disease (100%) and complex lesions (100%) than the overall group.Conclusions. Elderly patients who undergo coronary artery stenting have significantly higher rates of procedural complications and worse six month outcomes than younger patients, especially those who present with combined unstable angina, history of MI, EF < 50%, multivessel disease and complex lesions. Overall survival in the elderly population at 12 months postcoronary artery stenting was 91% and event-free survival was 54%.     

Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary disease

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) constitute a major breakthrough in restenosis prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study compared the clinical outcomes of PCI using DES versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) in real-world. METHODS: From January 2003 to December 2004, 466 consecutive patients with MVD underwent revascularization, 235 by PCI with DES and 231 by CABG. The study end-point was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) at the first 30 days after procedure and during follow-up. RESULTS: Most preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups, but left main disease (24.7% vs 2.6%, P<0.001) and three-vessel disease (65% vs 54%, P = 0.02) were more prevalent in CABG group. The number of coronary lesions was also greater in CABG group (3.7 +/- 1.1 vs 3.3 +/- 1.1, P<0.001). Despite higher early morbidity (3.9% vs 0.8%, P = 0.03) associated with CABG, there were no significant differences in composite MACEs at the first 30 days between the two groups. During follow-up (mean 25+/-8 months), the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular event was similar in both groups (PCI 6.3% vs CABG 5.6%, P = 0.84). However, bypass surgery still afforded a lower need for repeat revascularization (2.8% vs 10.4%, p = 0.001). Consequently, overall MACE rate (14.5% vs 7.9%, P = 0.03) remained higher after PCI. CONCLUSION: PCI with DES is a safe and feasible alternative to CABG for selected patients with MVD. The reintervention gap was further narrowed in the era of DES. Aside from restenosis, progression of disease needs to receive substantial emphasis.     

Procedural results and late clinical outcomes following multivessel coronary stenting

ObjectivesTo evaluate in-hospital and long-term clinical outcomes in a large consecutive series of patients undergoing percutaneous multivessel stent intervention.BackgroundHigh restenosis and recurrent angina rates have limited the clinical outcomes of multivessel coronary angioplasty before stents were available to improve angioplasty results.MethodsWe evaluated in-hospital and long-term clinical outcomes (death, Q-wave myocardial infarction [MI], and repeat revascularization rates at one year) in 398 consecutive patients treated with coronary stents in two (94% of patients) or three native arteries, compared to 1,941 patients undergoing stenting procedure in a single coronary artery between January 1, 1994 and August 29, 1997.ResultsOverall procedural success was obtained in 96% of patients with two- or three-vessel stenting and in 97% of patients with single-vessel stent intervention (p = 0.36). Procedural complications were also similar (3.8% for multivessel versus 2.9% for single vessel, p = 0.14). During follow up, target lesion revascularization was 15% in multivessel and 16% in single-vessel interventions (p = 0.38), and repeat revascularization (calculated per treated patient) was also similar for both groups (20% vs. 21%, p = 0.73). There was no difference in death (1.4% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.26), and Q-wave MI (1.2% vs. 0%, p = 0.02) was lower following multivessel interventions. Overall cardiac event-free survival was similar for both groups (p = 0.52).ConclusionsUnlike previous conventional angioplasty experiences, multivessel stenting has (1) similar in-hospital procedural success and major complication rates and (2) similar long-term (one year) clinical outcomes compared with single-vessel stenting. Thus, stents may be a viable therapeutic strategy in carefully selected patients with multivessel coronary disease.     

Influence of diabetes mellitus on outcome in the era of primary stenting for acute myocardial infarction.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of diabetes mellitus (DM) on the clinical and angiographic outcomes in 62 diabetic and 152 nondiabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with primary coronary stenting within 12 h of the onset of symptoms. The diabetic patients had a greater incidence of hyperlipidemia, prior myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel disease. There were no statistically significant differences in other variables. Procedural success was similar in the 2 groups. At a mean follow-up of 2.1 +/- 0.6 years, 13% of diabetic and 11% of nondiabetic patients had died (p = 0.70). The percentage of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 37% of diabetic and 20% of nondiabetic patients (p = 0.003). Rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, non-fatal MI, TVR) were 50% of diabetic and 32% of nondiabetic patients (p = 0.007). On multivariate analysis, DM was not a predictor of death. Independent predictors of death were age, multivessel disease, TIMI < or = 2 and cardiogenic shock. However, DM and age were independent predictors of MACE. In conclusion, DM is not an independent predictor of death in patients with AMI after stenting, but diabetic patients had a higher incidence of TVR, making DM an independent predictor of MACE.     

Treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: immediate and mid-term results

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated clinical outcome after multivessel stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in unselected lesions. BACKGROUND: Safety and effectiveness of multivessel SES implantation is currently unknown. METHODS: Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction [MI], and repeat revascularization) were analyzed at 30 days and at 6 months after multivessel SES implantation. RESULTS: In 155 consecutive patients, 573 SES were implanted in 3.3 +/- 1.3 lesions per patient. At 30 days, the cumulative MACE rate was 10.3%: 7.1% patients developed a non-Q-wave MI, 1.9% developed a Q-wave MI, 0.6% died for non-cardiac reasons, and 0.6% had a repeat revascularization. Clinical follow-up was obtained in all 112 eligible patients treated for 359 lesions at a mean time of 6.5 +/- 2.2 months. The cumulative MACE rate was 22.3%: 3 (2.7%) deaths (1 for cardiac reasons), 4 (3.6%) MIs, target lesion revascularization (TLR) in 16 (14.3%) patients with 24 (6.7%) lesions. Target vessel revascularization was required in 18 (16.1%) patients due to TLR of lesions treated with SES or to disease progression (1.8% of patients). Cox regression analysis revealed total stent length per patient as the most powerful independent predictor of MACE. Overall stent thrombosis occurred in three (1.9%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Multivessel SES implantation can be safely performed on patients with complex coronary artery disease. The need for revascularization increases because of the cumulative effect of TLR on patients with multiple lesions.     

Outcomes of Patients with Coronary Artery Perforation Complicating Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Correlations with the Type of Adjunctive Antithrombotic Therapy: Pooled Analysis from REPLACE-2, ACUITY, and HORIZONS-AMI Trials

Background: The lack of a specific counteragent to bivalirudin may complicate the management of patients with coronary artery (CA) perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Aim: Assess outcomes of patients with CA perforation from three PCI trials comparing intravenous bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibition versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus GP IIb/IIIa.
Methods: A pooled analysis of patients treated with PCI in three randomized trials including REPLACE-2, ACUITY, and HORIZONS-AMI.
Results: Among a total of 12,921 patients, CA perforation occurred in 35 patients (0.27%). By multivariable analysis, baseline creatinine clearance was the only independent predictor of CA perforation (per 10 mL/min decrease, odds ratio [95% confidence interval]= 1.28 [1.11, 1.47], P = 0.0007). At 30 days, patients with versus without CA perforation had significantly (all P values ≤0.001) higher rates of 30-day mortality (11.4% vs. 1.0%), myocardial infarction (MI) [Q wave: 22.9% vs. 5.7%; non-Q wave: 17.1% vs. 4.9%], target vessel revascularization (TVR) [20.1% vs. 1.8%], and composite end-point of death/MI/TVR (31.4% vs. 7.8%). Patients assigned to bivalirudin versus UFH plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor had nonsignificantly lower rates of death (0% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.08), similar rates of MI (26.7% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.92), significantly lower rates of TVR (6.7% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.04), and similar rates of the composite end-point of death/MI/TVR (35.5% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.54).
Conclusion: In three PCI trials, treatment of patients experiencing CA perforation with adjunctive antithrombotic therapy of bivalirudin monotherapy was not associated with worse outcomes compared to treatment with UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors.     

Clinical outcomes following drug-eluting versus bare metal stent implantation for lesion subsets excluded from pivotal clinical trials: findings from the GHOST Study (Guthrie Health System Off-Label StenT Study)

Objectives: We assessed outcomes of patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) vs. bare metal stent (BMS) implantation for complex lesions excluded from pivotal clinical trials of DES.
Background: Although DES improve target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to BMS in randomized trials, data on safety and efficacy of DES in complex lesions are insufficient.
Methods: In a single-center registry of 1,354 patients who underwent stent implantation for complex lesions between July 2001 and December 2005, we compared the incidence of death, death or myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis [definite or probable by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria], TVR, and MACE between patients who received DES (n = 483) versus those who received BMS (n = 871). Mean duration of follow-up was 494 versus 838 days in DES and BMS groups, respectively.
Results: Clinical outcomes in DES versus BMS groups were as follows: death 5.2% versus 11.5% (log-rank P = 0.042); death/MI 11.2% versus 16.7% (P = 0.47), stent thrombosis 2.9% versus 2.6% (P = 0.61), TVR 6.6 versus 18.5% (P < 0.0001), MACE 14.9% versus 29.7% (P = 0.0002), respectively. After adjustment for baseline differences, DES implantation was associated with lower TVR (adjusted hazards ratio HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.26–0.56, P < 0.0001) and MACE (HR = 0.56, CI 0.42–0.74, P < 0.0001) without significant impact on other outcomes. In 933 patients who underwent DES (n = 483) or BMS (n = 450) implantation in the year 2003 or later, DES implantation similarly lowered TVR and MACE without affecting other outcomes.
Conclusions: Our findings support the safety and efficacy of DES in patient subsets excluded from pivotal randomized clinical trials of DES.     

Five year clinical effect of coronary stenting and coronary artery bypass grafting in renal insufficient patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: insights from ARTS trial.

AIMS: To compare coronary stent implantation and bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease in patients with renal insufficiency. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ARTS trial, 142 moderate renal insufficient patients (Ccr<60 mL/min) with multivessel coronary disease were randomly assigned to stent implantation (n=69) or CABG (n=73). At 5 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mortality (14.5% in the stent group vs. 12.3% in the CABG group, P=0.81), or combined endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), or myocardial infarction (MI) (30.4% in the stent group vs. 23.3% in the CABG group, P=0.35). Among patients who survived without CVA or MI, 18.8% in the stent group underwent a second revascularization procedure when compared with 8.2% in the surgery group (P=0.08). The event-free survival at 5 years was 50.7% in the stent group and 68.5% in the surgery group (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: At 5 years, the differences in mortality and combined incidence of death, CVA, and MI between coronary stenting and surgery did not reach statistically significant level. However, the occurrence of MACCE in the stent group was higher than in the CABG group, mainly driven by the higher incidence of repeat revascularization in the stent group.     

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。     

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。     

One-year clinical outcomes of protected and unprotected left main coronary artery stenting.

AIMS: To evaluate outcomes for left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenting and compare results between protected (left coronary grafted) and unprotected LMCA stenting in the current bare-metal stent era. METHODS: We reviewed outcomes among 142 consecutive patients who underwent protected or unprotected LMCA stenting since 1997. All-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target-lesion revascularization (TLR), and the combined major adverse clinical event (MACE) rates at one year were computed. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (70%) underwent protected and 43 patients (30%) underwent unprotected LMCA stenting. In the unprotected group, 86% were considered poor surgical candidates. Survival at one year was 88% for all patients, TLR 20%, and MACE 32%. At one year, survival was reduced in the unprotected group (72% vs. 95%, P<0.001) and MACE was increased in the unprotected patients (49% vs. 25%, P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In the current era, stenting for both protected and unprotected LMCA disease is still associated with high long-term mortality and MACE rates. Stenting for unprotected LMCA disease in a high-risk population should only be considered in the absence of other revascularization options. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of stenting for unprotected LMCA disease.     

Argentine Randomized Study: Coronary Angioplasty with Stenting versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in patients with Multiple-Vessel Disease (ERACI II): 30-day and one-year follow-up results. ERACI II Investigators

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare percutaneous transluminal coronary revascularization (PTCR) employing stent implantation to conventional coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in symptomatic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: Previous randomized studies comparing balloon angioplasty versus CABG have demonstrated equivalent safety results. However, CABG was associated with significantly fewer repeat revascularization procedures. METHODS: A total of 2,759 patients with coronary artery disease were screened at seven clinical sites, and 450 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either PTCR (225 patients) or CABG (225 patients). Only patients with multivessel disease and indication for revascularization were enrolled. RESULTS: Both groups had similar clinical demographics: unstable angina in 92%; 38% were older than 65 years, and 23% had a history of peripheral vascular disease. During the first 30 days, PTCR patients had lower major adverse events (death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization procedures and stroke) compared with CABG patients (3.6% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.002). Death occurred in 0.9% of PTCR patients versus 5.7% in CABG patients, p < 0.013, and Q myocardial infarction (MI) occurred in 0.9% PTCR versus 5.7% of CABG patients, p < 0.013. At follow-up (mean 18.5 +/- 6.4 months), survival was 96.9% in PTCR versus 92.5% in CABG, p < 0.017. Freedom from MI was also better in PTCR compared to CABG patients (97.7% vs. 93.4%, p < 0.017). Requirements for new revascularization procedures were higher in PTCR than in CABG patients (16.8% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In this selected high-risk group of patients with multivessel disease, PTCR with stent implantation showed better survival and freedom from MI than did conventional surgery. Repeat revascularization procedures were higher in the PTCR group.     

Long-Term Clinical Follow-up after Sirolimus-Eluting Stent versus Bare Metal Stent Implantation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background and Objective: Drug-eluting stents have been shown to reduce the incidence of restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR) compared with bare metal stents (BMSs); however, the long-term efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has not been well established. We have investigated the long-term clinical outcome of SES in patients with ACS.
Methods: Consecutive 245 patients with ACS treated by primary stenting within 24 hours after onset were enrolled. There were 128 patients treated with SES and 117 patients were treated with BMS. We evaluated the incidence of major cardiac events (MACE; total death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, TVR) at 3 years, comparing with 8-month clinical outcome.
Results: Eight-month clinical follow-up shows a significantly lower incidence of TVR in the SES group, 3.1% in the SES group versus 9.4% in the BMS group (P = 0.04). At 3-year clinical follow-up, there was no significant difference in the rate of TVR between the two groups, 8.4% versus 12.4% (P = 0.37). Cumulative incidence of total MACE was 9.2% in the SES group compared with 15.9% in the BMS group (P = 0.18). Only one case of stent thrombosis was observed in the SES (late thrombosis), while two cases of stent thrombosis occurred in the BMS group (late and very late thrombosis; P = 0.55).
Conclusion: SES implantation in patients with ACS is associated with favorable long-term clinical outcome with no excess of late stent thrombosis. Further long-term clinical follow-up will be warranted to confirm the safety and efficacy of SES.     

B型脑钠肽在评估非ST段抬高急性冠脉综合征患者预后中的价值

目的:目前急性冠脉综合征中ST段抬高心肌梗死患者B型脑钠肽水平增高及意义已得到广泛的认同,但对于非ST段抬高心肌梗死(Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction,NSTEMI)和不稳定性心绞痛(Unstable ansina,UA)患者B型脑钠肽的变化及差别尚不肯定.本文通过分析其规律及与近期心血管事件的关系,用于危险分层评估. 方法:入选急性冠脉综合征患者138例,其中NSTEMI组69例,UA组69例,同时人选胸痛就诊但冠状动脉造影正常的患者30例作为对照组.所有患者于发病6小时从周围静脉中留取血样测定B型脑钠肽,同期测定全血肌钙蛋白I.随访3个月内主要不良心血管事件的发生率. 结果:①NSTEMI组、UA组、对照组B型脑钠肽水平分别为54.9 pg/ml(四分位区间为18.20 pg/ml至81.85 pg/ml)、13.9 pg/ml(四分位区间为8.00 ps/ml至26.45 ps/ml和9.4 pg/ml(四分位区间为5.00 pg/ml至12.6 pg/ml),3组之间比较差异有统计学意义,P<0.05.NSTEMI组B型脑钠肽水平最高,并且与全血肌钙蛋白I水平呈正相关(r:0.675,P<0.001).②随访3个月,138例中有30例患者(21.7%)发生主要不良心血管事件,发生者B型脑钠肽水平高于未发生者(31.3 pg/ml vs 19.35 pg/ml),P=0.001. 结论:非ST段抬高急性冠脉综合征患者早期B型脑钠肽水平明显升高,并且B型脑钠肽水平与近期心血管事件的发生有一定相关性,可应用于危险分层的评估.