期刊文献+

经皮冠状动脉介入术与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干病变远期疗效的Meta分析 被引量:6

Effects of PCI and CABG on unprotected left main artery lesions:a Meta analysis
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的:比较经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)对无保护左主干病变(ULMCA)的远期疗效和安全性。方法:检索PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库,收集国内外公开发表的关于ULMCA行PCI与CABG术后长期随访的对比研究,研究的相关临床终点为全因死亡、心肌梗死、脑血管事件、靶血管血运重建。采用RevMan 5软件进行数据分析。结果:最终纳入文献8篇,共11 332例患者,3年以上随访结果显示,PCI组与CABG组全因死亡率(OR=1.02,95%CI:0.73~1.42,P=0.92)、脑血管事件发生率(OR=0.59,95%CI:0.33~1.07,P=0.08)差异无统计学意义,但PCI组心肌梗死率(OR=1.74,95%CI:1.43~2.11,P<0.000 01)、靶血管血运重建发生率(OR=2.60,95%CI:1.81~3.72,P<0.000 01)显著增高。亚组分析结果显示:5年随访,与CABG组相比,PCI组全因死亡率(OR=0.91,95%CI:0.64~1.28,P=0.59)轻微降低,脑血管事件发生率(OR=0.64,95%CI:0.28~1.48,P=0.29)无明显差异,但心肌梗死率(OR=2.08,95%CI:1.62~2.69,P<0.000 01)、靶血管血运重建发生率(OR=2.70,95%CI:1.80~4.03,P<0.000 01)仍显著增高。7年随访,与CABG组相比,PCI组全因死亡率(OR=0.61,95%CI:0.46~0.80,P=0.000 4)、脑血管事件发生率(OR=0.23,95%CI:0.16~0.32,P<0.000 01)均显著降低,心肌梗死率(OR=2.00,95%CI:1.39~2.86,P=0.000 2)、靶血管血运重建发生率(OR=2.37,95%CI:1.65~3.41,P<0.000 01)仍显著增高。结论:PCI与CABG治疗ULMCA患者3年随访全因死亡率、脑血管事件发生率相当,但PCI心肌梗死率与靶血管血运重建发生率较高。分层分析后7年随访,与CABG相比,PCI全因死亡率、脑血管事件发生率均显著降低,心肌梗死率、靶血管血运重建发生率仍显著增高。 Objective:To compare the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI)and coronary artery bypass grafting(CABG)on unprotected left main artery lesions.Method:PubMed,EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched to collect published randomized controlled trials about the long-term follow-up of ULMCA after PCI and CABG.The clinical endpoints of studies were all-cause death,myocardial infarction,cerebrovascular events,and revascularization of target blood vessels.The data were analyzed by RevMan 5 software.Result:Eight articles including a total of 11 332 patients were finally analyzed in the Meta-analysis.The results of follow-up more than 3 years showed that there was no significant difference in the all-cause death rate(OR=1.02,95%CI:0.73-1.42,P=0.92)and the incidence of cerebrovascular events(OR=0.59,95%CI:0.33-1.07,P=0.08)between PCI group and CABG group,but the myocardial infarction rate(OR=1.74,95%CI:1.43-2.11,P〈0.000 01)and the incidence of target vessel revascularization(OR=2.60,95%CI:1.81-3.72,P〈0.000 01)were increased significantly in PCI group.The results of subgroup analysis showed that the all-cause death rate was slightly decreased(OR=0.91,95%CI:0.64-1.28,P=0.000 4)and the incidence of cerebrovascular events had slightly increased(OR=0.64,95%CI:0.28-1.48,P=0.29),while the myocardial infarction rate(OR=2.08,95%CI:1.62-2.69,P〈0.000 01)and the incidence of target vessel revascularization(OR=2.70,95%CI:1.80-4.03,P〈0.000 01)were increased significantly in PCI group.After 7 years follow-up,compared with CABG group,the all-cause death rate(OR=0.61,95%CI:0.46-0.80,P=0.000 4)and the incidence of cerebrovascular events(OR=0.23,95%CI:0.16-0.32,P〈0.000 01)were decreased significantly,while the myocardial infarction rate(OR=2.00,95%CI:1.39-2.86,P=0.000 2)and the incidence of target vessel revascularization(OR=2.37,95%CI:1.65-3.41,P〈0.000 01)were increased significantly in PCI group.Conclusion:The all-death rate and the incidence of cerebrovascular events within 3 years in patients with ULMCA treated with PCI and CABG are comparable,but the myocardial infarction rate and the incidence of target vessel revascularization increase significantly in PCI group.After 7 years of follow-up,compare with CABG,the mortality rate and the incidence of cerebrovascular events of PCI are reduce significantly,but the myocardial infarction rate and the incidence of target vessel revascularization still increase significantly.
作者 龙承敏 李少川 李菊香 LONGChengmin;LI Shaochuan;LI Juxiang(The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University,Nanchang,330000,Chin)
出处 《临床心血管病杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2018年第7期664-671,共8页 Journal of Clinical Cardiology
关键词 经皮冠状动脉介入术 冠状动脉旁路移植术 无保护左主干病变 percutaneous coronary intervention coronary artery bypass grafting unprotected left main coronary artery
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献27

  • 1Leaman DM, Brower RW, Meester GT, Serruys P, van den Brand M. Coronary artery atherosclerosis: Severity of the disease, severity of angina pectoris and compromised left ventricular function. Circulation 1981 ;63:285-99. doi: l 0.116101 .CIR.63.2.285.
  • 2Emond M, Mock MB, Davis KB, Fisher LD, Holmes DR Jr., Chairman BR, et al. Long-term survival of medically treated patients in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) registry. Circulation 1994;90:2645-57. doi: 10.116101.CIR.90.6.2645.
  • 3Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2011 ACCFAHASCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: A report of the American College of Cardiology FoundationAmerican Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011;124:e574-651. doi: 10.1161 CIR.0b013e31823ba622.
  • 4Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS); European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, Di Mario C. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2010;31:2501-55. doi: 10.1093J eurheartjehq277.
  • 5Park DW, Seung KB, Kim YH, Lee JY, Kim W J, Kang S J, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 5-year results from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:117-24. doi: 10.1016j.jacc.2010.04.004.
  • 6Park S J, Kim YH, Park DW, Yun SC, Ahn JM, Song HG, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1718-27. doi: 10.1056NEJMoa 1100452.
  • 7Chieffo A, Magni V, Latib A, Maisano F, Ielasi A, Montorfano M, et al. 5-year outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stem implantation versus coronary artery bypass graft for unprotected left main coronary artery lesions the Milan experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:595-601. doi: 10.1016j. jcin.2010.03.014.
  • 8MoOr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Sthle E, Colombo A, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with toree-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet 2013;381:629-38. doi: 10.1016S014046736(13)60141-5.
  • 9Tatoulis J, Buxton BF, Fuller JA. Patencies of 2127 arterial to coronary conduits over 15 years. Ann Yhorac Surg 2004;77:93-101. doi: 10.1016S0003-4975(03)01331-6.
  • 10Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, Edwards FH, Ewy GA, Gardner T J, et al. ACCAHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Summary article. A report of the American College of CardiologyAmerican Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). J Am Coil Cardio12004;44:e213-3 t 0. doi: 10.1016j.j acc.2004.07.021.

共引文献57

同被引文献65

引证文献6

二级引证文献32

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部