《PCI后冠状动脉病变与多支血管病变的CABG死亡率》

  • 来源专题:心血管疾病防治
  • 编译者: 张燕舞
  • 发布时间:2018-05-22
  • 对于需要血运重建的稳定多支冠状动脉疾病(CAD)患者,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)和冠状动脉搭桥手术(CABG)之间的选择可能很困难。 2018年对来自11项比较两种血运重建策略的随机试验的个体患者数据汇总分析显示,多支血管病患者的5年全因死亡率高于PCI。 然而,预先指定的亚组分析发现,没有糖尿病的患者和疾病较轻的患者的CABG没有显着的死亡率益处。 这项荟萃分析提高了我们的舒适度,提供PCI作为无糖尿病或复杂疾病患者的CABG替代方案。

    BACKGROUND Numerous randomised trials have compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, no studies have been powered to detect a difference in mortality between the revascularisation strategies.

    METHODS We did a systematic review up to July 19, 2017, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents. Eligible studies included patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease who did not present with acute myocardial infarction, did PCI with stents (bare-metal or drug-eluting), and had more than 1 year of follow-up for all-cause mortality. In a collaborative, pooled analysis of individual patient data from the identified trials, we estimated all-cause mortality up to 5 years using Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared PCI with CABG using a random-effects Cox proportional-hazards model stratified by trial. Consistency of treatment effect was explored in subgroup analyses, with subgroups defined according to baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics.

    FINDINGS We included 11 randomised trials involving 11?518 patients selected by heart teams who were assigned to PCI (n=5753) or to CABG (n=5765). 976 patients died over a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (SD 1·4). Mean Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was 26·0 (SD 9·5), with 1798 (22·1%) of 8138 patients having a SYNTAX score of 33 or higher. 5 year all-cause mortality was 11·2% after PCI and 9·2% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR]1·20, 95% CI 1·06-1·37; p=0·0038). 5 year all-cause mortality was significantly different between the interventions in patients with multivessel disease (11·5% after PCI vs 8·9% after CABG; HR 1·28, 95% CI 1·09-1·49; p=0·0019), including in those with diabetes (15·5% vs 10·0%; 1·48, 1·19-1·84; p=0·0004), but not in those without diabetes (8·7% vs 8·0%; 1·08, 0·86-1·36; p=0·49). SYNTAX score had a significant effect on the difference between the interventions in multivessel disease. 5 year all-cause mortality was similar between the interventions in patients with left main disease (10·7% after PCI vs 10·5% after CABG; 1·07, 0·87-1·33; p=0·52), regardless of diabetes status and SYNTAX score.

    INTERPRETATION CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease.Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies.

  • 原文来源:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673618304239
相关报告
  • 《血管内成像指导经皮冠状动脉介入治疗复杂病变: 更新指南》

    • 来源专题:重大疾病防治
    • 编译者:门佩璇
    • 发布时间:2023-04-28
    • 这项由研究者发起的、由行业资助的、前瞻性、多中心、随机、开放标签的试验旨在测试血管内成像引导的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)相对于血管造影术引导的PCI在接受复杂冠状动脉病变经皮治疗的慢性冠状动脉综合征(CCS)或急性冠脉综合征(ACS)患者中的优越性。复杂冠状动脉病变被定义为:真正的分叉病变、慢性完全闭塞、无保护的左主干疾病、长病变、多血管疾病、需要三个或三个以上支架的病变、支架内再狭窄、严重钙化病变或主要心外膜血管口病变。 主要终点是靶血管衰竭(TVF),定义为心脏死亡、靶血管心肌梗死(MI)或临床驱动的靶血管血运重建(TVR)的复合。次要终点包括主要终点的单个成分、无手术相关MI的TVF、靶血管MI或心脏死亡的复合物以及明确的支架血栓形成(ST)。 2018年5月至2021 5月,共有1639名患有复杂冠状动脉病变的患者(平均年龄66岁;21%女性;51%ACS)在韩国20个地点登记,并按2:1的比例随机接受血管内成像引导PCI(n=1092)或血管造影引导PCI(n=547)。根据临床表现和参与中心对随机分组进行分层。血管内超声(IVUS)或OCT的选择由操作员自行决定,在PCI手术期间可以随时使用成像,但在支架植入后必须使用成像来指导优化。血管内成像在约75%的病例中使用IVUS进行,在其余病例中使用OCT进行。PCI采用冠状动脉病变准备的标准技术,并植入依维莫司洗脱支架。在1个月、6个月和12个月进行临床随访,此后每年进行一次。 中位随访时间为2.1年。血管内成像引导PCI组的主要终点发生率显著低于血管造影术引导PCI组[3年累计发生率,7.7%vs.12.3%;危险比(HR),0.64;95%置信区间(CI),0.45–0.89;P=0.008]。排除与手术相关的MI事件后,血管内成像引导PCI组的TVF发生率仍低于血管造影术引导PCI组(累计发生率,5.1%vs.8.7%;HR,0.59;95%CI,0.39-0.90)。 血管内成像引导PCI组的心脏死亡累计发生率低于血管造影术引导PCI组(1.7%对3.8%,HR,0.47,95%CI 0.24-0.93),以及TVR(3.4%对5.5%;HR,0.69;95%CI,0.40–1.18)和靶血管MI或心脏性死亡的复合终点(5.3%对8.5%;HR,0.62;95%CI,0.42–0.93)。在整个试验人群中,明确ST段的发生率较低(0.3%),两组之间存在统计学上不确定的差异(0.1%对0.7%;HR,0.25;95%CI,0.02–2.75)。两组之间未观察到手术相关安全事件(如围手术期MI、造影剂诱导的肾病)的发生率差异。
  • 《CTA在多血管冠状动脉疾病治疗决策中的应用》

    • 来源专题:心血管疾病防治
    • 编译者:jiafw
    • 发布时间:2018-11-30
    • 目的:冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CTA)已成为疑似冠状动脉疾病患者的非侵入性诊断方法,但其在复杂冠状动脉疾病患者中的应用仍有待研究。本研究旨在确定不同心脏团队基于冠脉CTA或常规血管造影结果制定治疗决策的一致性。 方法和结果:由介入心脏专家、心脏外科医生和放射科医师组成的独立心脏团队随机分组,对患有原发性左主干或三支冠状动脉疾病的患者进行冠状动脉CTA或常规血管造影的评估。每个心脏团队,对其他影像结果不知情,使用SYNTAX评分来量化解剖复杂度,使用SYNTAX评分II整合临床信息,提供基于4年死亡率预测的治疗建议:冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG),经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),或CABG与PCI均可。主要终点是心脏团队之间关于血运重建策略达成一致,次要终点是来自冠脉CTA(FFRCT)的分流量储备对治疗决策和流程的影响。研究共纳入223名患者,28%的冠脉CTA病例和26%的常规血管造影病例建议进行CABG治疗,冠脉CTA和常规血管造影之间治疗决策的一致性很高(kappa 0.82,95%置信区间0.74-0.91),869/1108处病变(196/223例患者)可获得FFRCT,来自冠状动脉CTA的分数流量储备改变了7%患者的治疗决策。 结论:对于患有左主干或三支冠状动脉疾病的患者,基于冠脉CTA的治疗决策与传统冠状动脉血管造影做出的决策高度一致,这表明完全基于这种非侵入性成像手段和临床信息制定治疗决策和计划的潜在可行性。