首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease
【24h】

Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease

机译:稳定冠状动脉疾病中的血运重建

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

IMPORTANCE Recent trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel disease were not designed to detect a difference in mortality and therefore were underpowered for this outcome. Consequently, the comparative effects of these 2 revascularization methods on long-term mortality are still unclear. In the absence of solid evidence for mortality difference, PCI is oftentimes preferred over CABG in these patients, given its less invasive nature. OBJECTIVES To determine the comparative effects of CABG vs PCI on long-term mortality and morbidity by performing a meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials of the current era that compared the 2 treatment techniques in patients with multivessel disease. DATA SOURCES Asystematic literature searchwas conducted for all randomized clinical trials directly comparingCABGwith PCI. STUDY SELECTION To reflect current practice, we included randomized trials with 1 or more arterial grafts used in at least 90%, and 1 or more stents used in at least 70% of the cases that reported outcomes in patients with multivessel disease. DATA EXTRACTION Numbers of events at the longest possible follow-up and sample sizes were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS Atotal of 6 randomized trials enrolling a total of 6055 patientswere included, with aweighted average follow-up of 4.1 years. Therewas a significant reduction in total mortality withCABGcompared with PCI (I2 = 0%; risk ratio [RR],0.73 [95%CI,0.62-0.86]) (P >.001). Therewere also significant reductions inmyocardial infarction (I2 = 8.02%; RR, 0.58 [95%CI,0.48-0.72]) (P >.001) and repeat revascularization (I2 = 75.6%; RR,0.29 [95%CI,0.21-0.41]) (P >.001) with CABG. Therewas a trend toward excess strokes withCABG(I2 = 24.9%; RR, 1.36 [95%CI,0.99-1.86]), but thiswas not statistically significant (P =.06). For reduction in total mortality, therewas no heterogeneity between trials thatwere limited to and not limited to patients with diabetes or whether stentswere drug eluting or not. Owing to lack of individual patient-level data, additional subgroup analyses could not be performed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In patients with multivessel coronary disease, compared with PCI, CABG leads to an unequivocal reduction in long-term mortality andmyocardial infarctions and to reductions in repeat revascularizations, regardless of whether patients are diabetic or not. These findings have implications for management of such patients.
机译:用于多血管疾病的经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)VS冠状动脉旁路接枝(CABG)的重要性近期试验不设计用于检测死亡率的差异,因此对此结果产生了动力。因此,这两种血运重建方法对长期死亡率的比较效果尚不清楚。在没有固体证据的情况下死亡率差异,PCI通常在这些患者中优先于CABG,鉴于其侵入性较少。目的通过对当前时代的所有随机临床试验进行荟萃分析来确定CABG vs PCI对长期死亡率和发病率的比较效果,所述术语分析与多血糖疾病患者的2种治疗技术进行了比较了2种治疗技术。数据来源对所有随机临床试验进行的Asystematic文献搜索,直接比较了CVITS PCI。学习选择以反映当前的实践,我们包括随机试验,其中包含至少90%,1个或更多支座中使用的1个或更多的支架,其中包含至少70%的患者患者患者患者的患者。提取了最长可能的随访和样本尺寸的数据提取数。 7种随机试验的数据合成地产招收共有6055例患者的患者,可吸引4.1年的平均随访。因此,与PCI(I2 = 0%;风险比[RR],0.73 [95%CI,0.62-0.86])(P> .001)的总死亡率显着降低了总死亡率(I2 = 0%。其中还显着降低了inmyactial梗死(I2 = 8.02%; RR,0.58 [95%CI,0.48-0.72])(p> .001)和重复血运重建(I2 = 75.6%; RR,0.29 [95%CI,0.21- 0.41])(p> .001)带CABG。因此,随着CABG的多余行程(I2 = 24.9%; RR,1.36 [95%CI,0.99-1.86]),但TMAS没有统计学意义(P = .06)。为了减少总死亡率,有没有试验之间的异质性,因为患有糖尿病的患者或者是毒药患者的试验。由于缺乏个体患者级数据,无法执行额外的子组分析。与PCI相比,多型冠状动脉疾病患者的结论和相关性,CABG导致长期死亡率和肿瘤梗死的径向降低,并减少重复血运重建,无论患者是否患糖尿病。这些发现对这些患者的管理有影响。

著录项

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