Background The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction （HFPEF） remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of percutaneous coro...Background The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction （HFPEF） remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） and coronary artery bypass grafting （CABG） in patients with HFPEF. Methods From July 2003 through September 2005, a total of 920 patients with coronary artery disease （CAD） and HFPEF （ejection fraction 〉50%） underwent PCI （n=350） or CABG （n=570）. We compared the groups with respect to the primary outcome of mortality, and the secondary outcomes of main adverse cardiac and cerebral vascular events （MACCE）, including death, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularization, at a median follow-up of 543 days. Results In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the PCI group than in the CABG group （0.3% vs. 2.5%, adjusted P=0.016）. During follow-up, there was no significant difference in the two groups with regard to mortality rates （2.3% vs. 3.5%, adjusted P=0.423）. Patients receiving PCI had higher MACCE rates as compared with patients receiving CABG （13.4% vs. 4.0%, adjusted P 〈0.001）, mainly due to higher rate of repeat revascularization （adjusted P 〈0.001）. Independent predictors of mortality were age, New York Heart Association （NYHA） class and chronic total occlusion. Conclusion Among patients with CAD and HFPEF, PCI was shown to be as good as CABG with respect to the mortality rate, although there was a higher rate of repeat revascularization in patients undergoing PCI.展开更多
文摘Background The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction （HFPEF） remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） and coronary artery bypass grafting （CABG） in patients with HFPEF. Methods From July 2003 through September 2005, a total of 920 patients with coronary artery disease （CAD） and HFPEF （ejection fraction 〉50%） underwent PCI （n=350） or CABG （n=570）. We compared the groups with respect to the primary outcome of mortality, and the secondary outcomes of main adverse cardiac and cerebral vascular events （MACCE）, including death, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularization, at a median follow-up of 543 days. Results In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the PCI group than in the CABG group （0.3% vs. 2.5%, adjusted P=0.016）. During follow-up, there was no significant difference in the two groups with regard to mortality rates （2.3% vs. 3.5%, adjusted P=0.423）. Patients receiving PCI had higher MACCE rates as compared with patients receiving CABG （13.4% vs. 4.0%, adjusted P 〈0.001）, mainly due to higher rate of repeat revascularization （adjusted P 〈0.001）. Independent predictors of mortality were age, New York Heart Association （NYHA） class and chronic total occlusion. Conclusion Among patients with CAD and HFPEF, PCI was shown to be as good as CABG with respect to the mortality rate, although there was a higher rate of repeat revascularization in patients undergoing PCI.
