首页> 外文期刊>The American Journal of Cardiology >Trends in Outcomes of Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease or Three-Vessel Disease With the Routine Incorporation of Fractional Flow Reserve in Real Practice
【24h】

Trends in Outcomes of Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease or Three-Vessel Disease With the Routine Incorporation of Fractional Flow Reserve in Real Practice

机译:在实际操作中常规合并分数血流储备的左主干冠状动脉疾病或三支血管疾病的血运重建结果趋势

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Impact of fractional flow reserve guidance On revascularization strategies and outcomes for severe coronary artery disease was unclear. We evaluate changes in treatment strategy and clinical outcomes and to compare the effectiveness between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in severe coronary artery disease patients before and after routine use of FFR. From January 2008 to December 2011, we enrolled 2,612 patients with significant left main coronary artery disease or 3-vessel disease. We obtained data of patients before (from January 2008 to December 2009) and after (January 2010 to December 2011) the routine use of FFR. We used propensity score matching to compare the rate of primary outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization [Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral event; MACCE]) at 1 year. Introduction of routine FFR use reduced the proportion of patients receiving CABG from 54% to 43% (p <0.001). The risk of MACCE before routine FFR use was significantly higher in the PCI group than the CABG group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 to 3.03, p = 0.021), whereas that after routine FFR use was not significantly different between the groups (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.52, p = 0.59). The risk of MACCE in patients receiving revascularization lowered after routine FFR use compared with that before (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85, p = 0.005). In conclusion, routine incorporation of FFR resulted in improved PCI outcomes, comparable with concurrent CABG in patients with severe coronary artery disease who received revascularization. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
机译:尚无明确分流储备指南对血运重建策略和严重冠状动脉疾病结局的影响。我们评估了治疗策略和临床结局的变化,并比较了常规冠脉介入治疗前后严重冠心病患者的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与第二代药物洗脱支架和冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)之间的疗效。 FFR。从2008年1月到2011年12月,我们招募了2612名患有严重左主冠状动脉疾病或3支血管疾病的患者。我们获得了常规使用FFR之前(从2008年1月至2009年12月)和之后(2010年1月至2011年12月)的患者数据。我们使用倾向得分匹配来比较1年时主要结局发生率(死亡,心肌梗塞,中风或重复血运重建[重大心血管和脑事件; MACCE])。采用常规FFR使用可使接受CABG的患者比例从54%降至43%(p <0.001)。在PCI组中,常规FFR使用前发生MACCE的风险显着高于CABG组(风险比[HR] 1.82,95%置信区间[CI] 1.09至3.03,p = 0.021),而常规FFR使用后,两组之间无显着差异(HR 1.22,95%CI 0.59至2.52,p = 0.59)。常规FFR使用后,接受血管重建术的患者发生MACCE的风险较之前降低(HR 0.57,95%CI 0.38至0.85,p = 0.005)。总而言之,常规FFF合并可改善PCI结果,与接受血管重建的重度冠心病患者并发CABG相当。 (C)2015 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号