合并糖尿病患者行冠状动脉左主干病变介入治疗的疗效分析

目的探讨冠状动脉左主干病变合并糖尿病患者行经皮冠状动脉介入(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)治疗的疗效。方法回顾性分析87例(糖尿病组36例,非糖尿病组51例)冠状动脉左主干病变患者接受PCI治疗的临床资料,比较糖尿病与非糖尿病患者行冠状动脉左主干PCI治疗的方法、疗效和随访结果。结果两组基线资料比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。除外糖尿病组左主干合并前降支病变的比例高于非糖尿病组外,两组病变部位及合并病变冠状动脉分支的比例比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组支架植入成功率比较,差异无统计学意义[100%(36/36)vs.98%(50/51),P0.05]。两组介入治疗的各项结果比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组PCI治疗后1年各项冠状动脉造影及血管内超声检查结果比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05),随访期间冠状动脉造影和血管内超声检查均未发现左主干支架内有局部血栓的影象学表现。共83例患者随访到2007年12月,临床随访率95.4%(83/87),随访时间(31.8±6.3)个月。至随访结束,2例死亡,病死率2.4%(2/83),共有7例复发心绞痛,4例经造影证实为左主干支架内再狭窄。结论合并糖尿病的左主干病变患者,在血管内超声指导下进行介入治疗可以获得与非糖尿病患者相同的治疗效果。     

经桡动脉介入治疗无保护左主干病变的可行性与安全性研究

目的探讨经桡动脉行无保护左主干病变介入治疗的可行性和安全性。方法回顾性分析92例行介入治疗的无保护左主干病变患者,其中经桡动脉途径49例,经股动脉途径43例,观察两组患者的临床特征、病变特点、器械选择、并发症及主要心脏不良事件(MACE)。结果临床特征、复杂分叉病变、手术成功率两组之间差异无统计学意义(均为P0.05);支架直径、长度,支架释放压力与最大扩张压力两组之间差异无统计学意义(均为P0.05)。手术时间、投照时间、造影剂用量两组之间差异无统计学意义(均为P0.05)。桡动脉组与股动脉组比较,术后住院时间较短[(2.2±0.4)d比(3.3±0.5)d](P0.01)、局部血管并发症较少[2.0%(1/49)比14.0%(6/43),P0.05]。12个月的随访期间两组MACE率相似[8.2%(4/49)比7.0%(3/43),P=0.83]。结论经桡动脉行无保护左主干病变介入治疗缩短了住院时间,减少了外周血管并发症,具有良好的可行性与安全性。     

桡、股动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗无保护冠状动脉左主干病变的对比研究

目的 评价经桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗无保护左主干病变的可行性和安全性.方法 2004年3月至2006年9月,分别经桡动脉(36例)或股动脉(51例)途径完成87例无保护左主干病变患者的冠状动脉介入治疗,并观察不同入路介入治疗左主干病变的成功率、手术操作时间、造影剂用量、术后并发症以及临床随访期间发生严重心脏不良事件(MAcE)的情况.结果 在37例选择经桡动脉介入治疗的患者中仅1例患者因术中出现桡动脉痉挛而改为股动脉途径,桡动脉介入治疗的手术成功率为97.3%,两组患者完成手术的操作时间(59.2±15.0 mm比56.9±22.3 min)和造影剂用量(216±33 mL比205±41 mL)无明显差异,但经桡动脉途径介入治疗患者血管并发症的发生率(0)明显低于股动脉介入治疗患者(3.9%);临床随访6个月,仅1例股动脉介入治疗组患者死亡,分别有1例经桡动脉介入患者和2例经股动脉介入治疗患者随访期间接受了靶病变血运重建(TLR)治疗,随访期间总MACE的发生率桡动脉组为3.1%,股动脉组患者为5.7%,两组患者间差异无统计学意义.结论 相比于股动脉途径,经桡动脉途径冠状动脉介入治疗无保护左主干病变具有同样的临床效果,而且血管并发症的发生率要明显低于股动脉途径的介入治疗.     

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。     

70岁及以上患者冠状动脉无保护左主干病变支架置入术后的随访研究

目的 观察年龄70岁及以上患者无保护左主干病变经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)预后的近期和长期临床随访结果。 方法 回顾性分析100例无保护左主干病变行药物洗脱支架置入患者临床资料,比较年龄70～90岁组(52例)和37～69岁组(48例)的病死率、心肌梗死、再次血运重建及其综合终点。 结果 两组危险因素、血管病变及置入支架等基线资料比较,差异无统计学意义（均P＞0.05）。70～90岁组和37～69岁组手术成功率分别为96.2％(50例)与97.9％（47例）,差异无统计学意义(x2=1.75,P＞0.05),住院病死率分别为3.8％（2例）与2.1％（1例）,差异无统计学意义（x2 =0.27,P＞0.05）。两组平均随访时间分别为（22.0±2.5）个月与（23.0±11.7）个月,差异无统计学意义（t=-0.78,P＞0.05）。随访期间70～90岁与37～69岁组病死率、心肌梗死、再次PCI分别为3.8％（2例）与2.1％（1例）、7.7％（4例）与4.2％（2例）和13.5％（7例）与12.5％(6例),差异无统计学意义（x2值分别为2.51、0.55、0.02,均P＞0.05）,死亡、心肌梗死及再次血运重建综合终点分别为30.8％（16例）与18.8％（9例）,差异无统计学意义(x2= 1.92,P＞0.05)。 结论 70岁及以上患者冠状动脉无保护左主干病变药物洗脱支架置入手术成功率高,长期随访安全有效。     

120例无保护左主干冠状动脉病变药物洗脱支架术的临床疗效和随访研究

目的探讨药物洗脱支架(DES)在无保护左主干冠状动脉(LMCA)病变的疗效。方法回顾性分析符合条件连续的120例无保护LMCA病变患者行DES的疗效,将其分为分叉病变组(80例)和非分叉病变组(40例)两组,根据病变特点行单支架术或双支架术,分析其支架术的操作特点,住院期间及出院后随访其主要心脏不良事件(MACE,包括死亡、非致死性心肌梗死及靶病变重建)及支架内血栓形成(ST)的情况。结果两组间的临床基线情况差异无统计学意义,共106(88.3%)例患者完成随访,分叉病变组更多使用血管内超声(IVUS)指导治疗(但P>0.05),分叉病变组33例行双支架术,非分叉病变组5例行双支架术(P=0.001),住院期间无MACE及支架内血栓(ST)发生,出院随访平均(26.3±14.5)个月,MACE11例(9.2%),总共死亡3例(2.8%),都是SYNTAX积分及EuroSCORE均属高危的患者,非致死性心肌梗死2例(1.9%),靶病变重建(TLR)6例(5.7%),造影再狭窄6例(占造影随访患者的15.8%),两组ST各1例,两组间MACE差异无统计学意义(7.5%比12.5%,χ2=0.801,P=0.503)。结论在选择性患者行DES治疗无保护LMCA病变不论是否分叉病变近远期的安全性和有效性可以接受。     

无保护左主干病变介入治疗后冠状动脉造影随访结果分析

目的探讨左主干病变裸支架治疗后再狭窄的可能原因。方法回顾性分析自1997年到2004年间行无保护左主干病变介入治疗并进行冠状动脉造影随访的18例患者的病变情况及其远期疗效。结果(1)9例双支架置入患者中,药物支架V型支架术的6例患者中有4例发生了再狭窄,再狭窄均发生在前降支和回旋支血管开口处;裸支架T支架术的2例患者发生了再狭窄,其中1例弥漫性再狭窄,另外1例发生了回旋支开口的再狭窄。(2)9例置入单个支架的患者中,5例患者支架跨过了回旋支开口,即采取了Cross-over技术,复查时只有1例左主干支架发生了再狭窄;3例左主干体部支架的患者中1例发生了弥漫性再狭窄。(3)对两例V支架的患者进行了血管内超声检查,发现在开口处没有完全膨胀,亦没有完全贴壁。结论(1)左主干病变介入治疗(特别是双支架置入方法)的再狭窄率很高。(2)在左主干分叉病变治疗中,支架跨过回旋支患者的远期预后良好,即支架可以安全地跨过回旋支。     

经桡动脉无鞘技术在冠状动脉左主干病变介入治疗中的应用

目的 评估经桡动脉无鞘技术在冠状动脉左主干病变介入治疗中的可行性及安全性.方法 对10例冠状动脉左主干病变患者采用经桡动脉无鞘技术行介入治疗,观察手术成功率和并发症情况.结果 10例患者中8例左主干病变累及前三叉,3例累及左主干开口;全部10例患者均选用7F指引导管经桡动脉无鞘技术成功完成手术,对8例累及左主干前三叉病变分别采用了 cullote 或crossover术式,7例患者最终进行了球囊对吻扩张;部分患者使用了血管内超声或切割球囊.随访期间无1例患者发生严重桡动脉穿刺并发症或主要不良心脑血管事件.结论 经桡动脉无鞘技术可作为一种安全、可行的方法应用于冠状动脉左主干病变的介入治疗中.     

左心室收缩功能正常的老年冠心病患者无保护左主干病变PCI治疗预后的影响因素

目的 探讨左心室收缩功能正常（左心室射血分数≥40％）的老年冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病（冠心病）患者无保护左主干（unprotected left main,ULM）病变经皮冠状动脉介入（percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI）治疗预后的影响因素.方法 回顾性分析2009年1月至2011年12月在广西壮族自治区人民医院因ULM接受PCI治疗的左心室收缩功能正常的患者112例的临床资料和冠状动脉造影结果.根据患者的情况分为非老年组（年龄＜60岁）和老年组（≥60岁）,比较两组间的基线资料和冠状动脉造影结果.应用多因素回归分析法观察年龄对ULM介入治疗结果的预测价值.结果 总计入选符合条件的患者112例,其中非老年组42例和老年组70例.老年组糖尿病、高脂血症、吸烟史、既往PCI治疗、主要心脑血管不良事件（MACCE）、术后心肌梗死发生率明显高于非老年组,差异有统计学意义（分别为42.9％ vs.21.1％,P=0.021;40％ vs.11.9％,P=0.040; 28.6％ vs.9.5％,P=0.017;18.6％ vs.4.8％,P=0.038;48.6％ vs.23.8％,P=0.009;22.9％ vs.0％,P=0.001）.Logistics回归分析得出女性、年龄、吸烟史、合并多支血管病变、远端或分叉病变均为主要心脑血管不良事件的独立预测因素.结论 左心室收缩功能正常的患者,其年龄因素是ULM介入治疗预后不良的强力预测因素.     

血红蛋白对经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后男性患者远期预后的影响

目的探讨经皮冠状动脉（冠脉）介入治疗（PCI）前血红蛋白对男性冠心病患者术后远期预后的影响。方法药物洗脱支架对血运重建策略影响研究（DESIRE-2）为单中心回顾性注册研究,纳入2003年7月至2005年9月在我院接受PCI或冠脉旁路移植术治疗的6 005例患者。入选其中接受单纯PCI、未接受溶栓治疗、无慢性肾功能不全病史的2 641例男性患者,根据术前血红蛋白应用五分位法将患者分为5组（血红蛋白≤132.4 g/L组,血红蛋白132.5～140.9 g/L组,血红蛋白141.0～147.9 g/L组,血红蛋白148.0～155.0 g/L组,血红蛋白≥155.1 g/L组）,比较各组患者的临床特点、冠脉病变特点以及远期预后,平均随访548 d。结果血红蛋白≤132.4 g/L组、132.5～140.9 g/L组、141.0～147.9 g/L组、148.0～155.0 g/L组和≥155.1 g/L组患者在年龄（分别为64.0±10.3岁、60.3±10.35岁、57.8±10.25岁、55.4±10.9岁和54.1±10.4岁,P〈0.001）,脑血管病史（分别为11.0%、8.2%、5.6%、5.9%和6.3%,P=0.004）,血运重建史（分别为12.5%、10.2%、13.0%、13.6%和8.3%,P=0.037）,左室射血分数（LVEF）（分别为58.9±11.3、60.9±10.3、61.7±10.7、61.4±10.1和60.6±10.4,P=0.001）,冠脉病变支数（P=0.003）以及体质指数（BMI）（分别为25.0±3.1 kg/m2、26.0±2.8 kg/m2、25.7±2.9 kg/m2、26.2±2.9 kg/m2和26.4±2.8 kg/m2,P〈0.001）、舒张压（分别为77.3±11.4 mmHg、78.0±10.3 mmHg、78.1±10.3 mmHg、79.5±11.4 mmHg和81.6±11.9 mmHg,P〈0.001）、总胆固醇（分别为164.1±37.4 mg/dL、172.0±37.4 mg/dL、174.6±39.5 mg/dL、180.3±41.4 mg/dL和187.5±39.9 mg/dL,P〈0.001）、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇（分别为94.7±28.3 mg/dL、100.2±31.0 mg/dL、101.5±33.2 mg/dL、105.9±32.8 mg/dL和109.5±32.6 mg/dL,P〈0.001）、三酰甘油（甘油三酯,分别为132.8±86.9 mg/dL、147.1±80.7 mg/dL、159.8±98.4 mg/dL、164.8±90.3 mg/dL和194.0±138.7 mg/dL,P〈0.001）水平等方面差异有统计学意义。多因素Cox?     

Early and long‐term results of percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main trifurcation disease

Objectives: We aimed to conduct a retrospective cohort study focusing on our 5‐year experience in the percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main (ULM) trifurcation disease. Background: Percutaneous treatment of ULM trifurcation remains a challenging and rare procedure for most interventional cardiologists. Moreover, data on long‐term outcomes are lacking. Methods: We retrieved all patients with ULM trifurcation disease treated percutaneously at our Institution since 2002, and adjudicated baseline, procedural, and outcome data. The primary end point was the long‐term rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, i.e., cardiac death, myocardial infarction, bypass surgery, or target vessel revascularization). Results: A total of 27 patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation for ULM trifurcation disease, with 14 (52%) cases of true trifurcations, i.e., with concomitant significant stenoses of the distal ULM/ostial left anterior descending plus ostial ramus intermedius and ostial circumflex. Bare‐metal stents were implanted in 8 (29%) patients and drug‐eluting stents (DES) in 26 (96%), with a main branch stent only strategy in 11 (40%), T stenting in 9 (33%), and V stenting in 6 (27%). Procedural and clinical success occurred in 26 (96%), with one postprocedural death. Angiographic follow‐up was obtained in 22 patients (81%), and clinical follow‐up was completed in all subjects after a median of 28 ± 17 months, showing overall MACE in 9 (33%), with cardiac death in 4 (15%), myocardial infarction in 1 (4%), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 4 (15%), and percutaneous target vessel revascularization in 5 (19%). Definite stent thrombosis was adjudicated in 1 (3%) patient. Treatment of a true trifurcation lesion and recurrence of angina during follow‐up were significantly associated with an increased risk of MACE (P = 0.029 and P = 0.050, respectively). Conclusions: Percutaneous treatment of ULM trifurcation disease is feasible, associated with favorable mid‐term results, and may be considered given its low invasiveness in patients at high surgical risk or with multiple comorbidities. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

一站式复合血管重建技术治疗无保护左主干病变

目的 评价一站式复合血管重建技术治疗无保护左主干病变的可行性和安全性.方法 2007年6月至2009年4月共有14例左主干病变患者接受一站式复合血管重建技术再血管化.其中男性13例,女性1例,平均年龄(60.4±15.4)岁,冠状动脉造影显示左主干开口或体部病变5例,远端或分叉病变11例.手术在一站式复合手术室内进行.通过胸骨下段小切口在心脏不停跳状态下行微创冠状动脉旁路移植术(左乳内动脉至前降支旁路移植),同期对左主干病变和(或)其他非前降支病变行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗.结果 14例患者均顺利进行一站式复合手术.即刻冠状动脉造影显示左乳内动脉桥均通畅.共有25处非前降支病变接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗,其中23处病变置入支架(药物洗脱支架27枚,金属裸支架2枚),其余2处病变仅行冠状动脉球囊扩张术.围术期及随访期间无死亡、围术期心肌梗死、脑卒中或再次再血管化等发生.平均随访7.9个月(1～15个月),所有患者均存活且无再发心绞痛.5例患者术后1年再次接受冠状动脉造影,证实左乳内动脉桥及支架均通畅.结论 一站式复合血管重建技术治疗经选择的无保护左主干病变尤其是合并高危因素者安全可行.     

急性冠状动脉综合征患者急诊介入治疗临床研究

目的分析本中心急性冠状动脉综合征患者的急诊介入治疗详细特征及趋势,以便更及时、有效地救治患者。方法对在我中心实施急诊介入治疗的230例急性冠状动脉综合征患者进行分析,总结病例的临床特征、介入治疗时间窗、治疗情况及近期预后。结果平均年龄增大、高龄及高危患者增多,治疗时间窗中各时间段(发病→急诊科→导管室→首次球囊扩张)均有缩短,其中导管室→首次球囊扩张时间缩短显著;药物支架、远端保护装置、血栓抽吸器、预防性冠状动脉联合注射防止无复流药物在近两年增长迅速,无血流发生率、主要心血管事件发生率及平均住院日显著下降,同时溶栓后介入治疗较直接介入治疗各种严重出血并发症无明显增加。结论急诊介入治疗是急性冠状动脉综合征的最有效治疗方法之一,各种新型辅助技术的使用可有效预防严重并发症的发生。     

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.     

Results of percutaneous drug‐eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary disease according to left ventricular systolic function

Objectives: We aimed to appraise the early and long‐term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) in patients with unprotected left main disease (ULM) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVD). Background: PCI with DES has being performed with increasing frequency in subjects with ULM and LVD, but few specific data are available. Setting and Patients: We identified patients undergoing PCI with DES for ULM at our Center and distinguished those with ejection fraction (EF) >50% from those with 40% <EF ≤50% and those with EF ≤40%. The primary end‐point was the rate of major adverse cerebro‐cardiovascular events (MACCE, ie death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, repeat PCI or bypass surgery). Results: A total of 197 patients were included, 57.4% with EF >50%, 32.0% with 40% <EF ≤50%, and 10.6% with EF ≤40%. In‐hospital mortality was significantly higher in those with EF ≤40% (9.5% vs. 0 and 3.2%, P < 0.001). A total of 96% patients were followed for 23 ± 14 months, yielding a MACCE rate of 44.2% (41.6% in those with EF >50%, 41.6% in those with 40% <EF ≤50%, and 61.9% in those with EF ≤40%, P = 0.4). Specifically, death occurred in 2.7%, 7.9%, and 28.6% (P < 0.001), cardiac death in 1.8%, 4.8%, and 23.8% (P = 0.001), MI in 8.0%, 7.9% and 0 (P = 0.4), and TVR in 15.9%, 11.1% and 33.3% (P = 0.6). Conclusion: Systolic ventricular dysfunction is highly correlated with in‐hospital and long term death rates in patients undergoing PCI with DES for ULM disease. However it does not confer an increased risk of nonfatal adverse events or stent thrombosis. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

氯吡格雷在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的应用

目的探讨氯吡格雷在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中的应用及疗效。方法选择91例行经皮腔内冠状动脉成形术(PTCA)+支架术的患者,分为两组:A组(26例应用氯吡格雷)和B组(65例应用噻氯匹定),对比观察其抗血小板聚集作用(监测凝血指标),随访有无心血管事件并观察药物不良反应。结果两组比较,氯吡格雷和噻氯匹定的抗血小板聚集疗效和随访的心血管事件无显著差异(P>0.05),A组不良反应总发生率低于B组(P=0.008)。结论氯吡格雷在PCI中的应用是安全有效的。     

高龄急性冠状动脉综合征患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的临床观察

目的评价高龄急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的效果和预后。方法收集入住本院的61例行PCI术的高龄ACS患者的临床资料,其中男性38例,女性23例,年龄为80~88(82±2)岁。19例行急诊PCI术,42例为择期PCI术,观察近期(住院期间)和远期主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)的发生和临床预后。结果61例患者中3支血管病变39例(64%),双支血管病变16例(26%),单支血管病变6例(10%);完全闭塞病变25例(41%);14例(34%)患者合并肾动脉狭窄。手术操作成功率97%,术后心肌梗死溶栓试验3级达97%,术后并发症发生率13%,其中造影剂肾病6例(10%)。住院期间MACCE发生率3%,均为心源性死亡,4个月至4年9个月随访期间MACCE发生率22%,包括3例心脑源性死亡、2例其他原因死亡。结论高龄ACS患者行PCI术手术操作成功率高,住院期间病死率和随访期间MACCE发生率较低,但患者病变重,并发症尤其是造影剂肾病发生率相对较高。     

Patient preferences for coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease

Objectives: Determine if patients prefer multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (mv‐PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for treatment of symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease (mv‐CAD) despite high 1‐year risk. Background: Patient risk perception and preference for CABG or mv‐PCI to treat medically refractory mv‐CAD are poorly understood. We hypothesize that patients prefer mv‐PCI instead of CABG even when quoted high mv‐PCI risk. Methods: 585 patients and 31 physicians were presented standardized questionnaires with a hypothetical scenario describing chest pain and medically refractory mv‐CAD. CABG or mv‐PCI was presented as treatment options. Risk scenarios included variable 1‐year risks of death, stroke, and repeat procedures for mv‐PCI and fixed risks for CABG. Participants indicated their preference of revascularization method based on the presented risks. We calculated the odds that patients or physicians would favor mv‐PCI over CABG across a range of quoted risks of death, stroke, and repeat procedures. Results: For nearly all quoted risks, patients preferred mv‐PCI over CABG, even when the risk of death was double the risk with CABG or the risk of repeat procedures was more than three times that for CABG (P < 0.0001). Compared to patients, physicians chose mv‐PCI less often than CABG as the risk of death and repeat procedures increased (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Conclusion: Patients favor mv‐PCI over CABG to treat mv‐CAD, even if 1‐year risks of death and repeat procedures far exceed risk with CABG. Physicians are more influenced by actual risk and prefer mv‐PCI less than patients despite similarly quoted 1‐year risks. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.