复杂高危冠心病患者在体外膜肺氧合联合主动脉内球囊反搏辅助下行择期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的远期疗效及预后结局分析

Long-term therapeutic efficacy and prognosis analysis of complex high-risk coronary heart disease patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation combined with intra-aortic balloon pump

目的比较复杂高危冠心病患者在体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)联合主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)辅助下行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的远期疗效及预后结局,探讨联合应用器械循环支持(MCS)装置在复杂PCI中的价值。方法连续纳入2018年1月至2022年12月于中国人民解放军空军军医大学第一附属医院心血管内科经冠状动脉造影诊断并符合入选标准的在MCS下行择期PCI的患者,根据术中MCS方式分为ECMO+IABP组和单纯IABP组。收集患者临床特征、造影特征、术中结果及并发症等资料,观察患者术后院内结果和1个月及1年主要不良心血管事件(MACE),分析两组间上述指标的差异并分析独立危险因素。结果共纳入218例行择期PCI的患者,其中ECMO+IABP组66例,单纯IABP组152例。两组患者的基线资料基本相当,ECMO+IABP组患者的病变特征更加复杂,合并心房颤动(6.1%比0.7%,P=0.030)、左主干病变(43.9%比27.0%,P=0.018)、三支病变(90.9%比75.7%,P=0.009)、右冠状动脉(RCA)病变(98.5%比86.8%,P=0.005)及RCA慢性完全闭塞病变(60.6%比35.5%,P<0.001)的比例均高于单纯IABP组,单纯IABP组既往行PCI的比例更高(32.9%比16.7%,P=0.014)。两组患者院内并发症总体发生率的差异无统计学意义(P=0.176),但是ECMO+IABP组术后低血压的发生率更高(19.7%比9.2%,P=0.031)。两组患者术后1个月MACE(4.5%比2.6%,P=0.435)和1年MACE(7.6%比7.9%,P=0.936)的发生率相当。Firth修正的多因素分析显示,院内发生心肺复苏(OR 7.17,95%CI1.27~40.38,P=0.025)和术后低血压(OR3.60,95%CI1.10~11.83,P=0.035)是发生术后1年MACE的独立危险因素。结论联合应用ECMO+IABP支持可使复杂高危冠心病患者获得通过PCI完成血运重建的机会并获得临床获益,远期预后满意。

Objective We aimed to compare the efficacy and prognosis of percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI)in complex and high-risk patients with coronary heart disease(CHD)treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation(ECMO)combined with intra-aortic balloon pump(IABP)assistance,and explore the application value of combined use of mechanical circulatory support(MCS)devices in complex PCI.Methods A total of patients who met the inclusion criteria and underwent selective PCI supported by MCS at the Department of Cardiology,the First Affi liated Hospital of the Air Force Medical University from January 2018 to December 2022 were continuously enrolled.According to the mechanical circulatory support method,the patients were divided into ECMO+IABP group and IABP group.Clinical characteristics,angiographic features,in-hospital outcomes,and complications were collected.The intra-hospital outcomes and major adverse cardiovascular events(MACE)at one month and one year after the procedure were observed.The diff erences and independent risk factors between the two groups in the above indicators were analyzed.Results A total of 218 patients undergoing elective PCI were included,of which 66 patients were in the ECMO+IABP group and 152 patients were in the IABP group.The baseline characteristics of the two groups of patients were generally comparable,but the ECMO+IABP group had more complex lesion characteristics.The proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation(6.1%vs.0.7%,P=0.030),left main disease(43.9%vs.27.0%,P=0.018),triple vessel disease(90.9%vs.75.5%,P=0.009),and RCA chronic total occlusion disease(60.6%vs.35.5%,P<0.001)was higher in the ECMO+IABP group compared to the IABP group.The proportion of patients with previous PCI history was higher in the IABP group(32.9%vs.16.7%,P=0.014).There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of in-hospital complications between the two groups(P=0.176),but the incidence of hypotension after PCI was higher in the ECMO+IABP group(19.7%vs.9.2%,P=0.031).The rates of 1-month MACE(4.5%vs.2.6%,P=0.435)and 1-year MACE(7.6%vs.7.9%,P=0.936)were comparable between the two groups.Multivariate analysis showed that in-hospital cardiac arrest(OR 7.17,95%CI 1.27–40.38,P=0.025)and after procedure hypotension(OR 3.60,95%CI 1.10–11.83,P=0.035)were independent risk factors for the occurrence of 1-year MACE.Conclusions Combination use of ECMO+IABP support can provide complex and high-risk coronary heart disease patients with an opportunity to achieve coronary artery revascularization through PCI,and achieve satisfactory long-term prognosis.