Multi-vessel Disease Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Ahmed Mahmoud El Amrawy, Mahmoud Hassan Abdelnabi, Abdallah Almaghraby
{"title":"Multi-vessel Disease Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease","authors":"Ahmed Mahmoud El Amrawy, Mahmoud Hassan Abdelnabi, Abdallah Almaghraby","doi":"10.9734/ca/2023/v12i2315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Revascularization of the coronary arteries is associated with better short term and long term prognosis in patients having multivessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, whether revascularization using coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug eluting stents (DES) is better remains unknown.
 Objectives: To compare the outcomes of revascularization by multi-vessel PCI using DES versus revascularization by CABG in patients with CKD having multivessel CAD, regarding in-hospital and one-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).
 Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the data of a group of patients having CKD with eGFR less than 60 ml/min with multivessel CAD who underwent revascularization by PCI or revascularization by CABG and were compared as regards in-hospital and one-year MAACE.
 Results: A total of 565 patients were reviewed in this study, 230 patients had multivessel PCI using DES while 335 patients had CABG. Comparing both revascularization groups regarding in-hospital MACCE, patients who had mutli-vessel PCI had significantly lower in-hospital mortality, cerebrovascular events (stroke/TIA) and lower total MACCE than patients who had CABG (P-value = 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.04 respectively). When comparing both revascularization groups regarding one-year MACCE, patients who had mutli-vessel PCI had significantly lower cerebrovascular events and total MACCE than those patients who had CABG (P-value = 0.02 & 0.03 respectively).
 Conclusion: This is a retrospective study to determine which strategy is better for revascularization of CKD patients having multivessel CAD; we can conclude that multi-vessel PCI using DES for CKD patients and multivessel CAD had advantages over CABG regarding in-hospital and one-year cerebrovascular accidents (TIA/stroke) and regarding total MACCE. Larger randomized controlled trials are required to confirm our findings.","PeriodicalId":431606,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology and Angiology: An International Journal","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology and Angiology: An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/ca/2023/v12i2315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Revascularization of the coronary arteries is associated with better short term and long term prognosis in patients having multivessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, whether revascularization using coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug eluting stents (DES) is better remains unknown. Objectives: To compare the outcomes of revascularization by multi-vessel PCI using DES versus revascularization by CABG in patients with CKD having multivessel CAD, regarding in-hospital and one-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the data of a group of patients having CKD with eGFR less than 60 ml/min with multivessel CAD who underwent revascularization by PCI or revascularization by CABG and were compared as regards in-hospital and one-year MAACE. Results: A total of 565 patients were reviewed in this study, 230 patients had multivessel PCI using DES while 335 patients had CABG. Comparing both revascularization groups regarding in-hospital MACCE, patients who had mutli-vessel PCI had significantly lower in-hospital mortality, cerebrovascular events (stroke/TIA) and lower total MACCE than patients who had CABG (P-value = 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.04 respectively). When comparing both revascularization groups regarding one-year MACCE, patients who had mutli-vessel PCI had significantly lower cerebrovascular events and total MACCE than those patients who had CABG (P-value = 0.02 & 0.03 respectively). Conclusion: This is a retrospective study to determine which strategy is better for revascularization of CKD patients having multivessel CAD; we can conclude that multi-vessel PCI using DES for CKD patients and multivessel CAD had advantages over CABG regarding in-hospital and one-year cerebrovascular accidents (TIA/stroke) and regarding total MACCE. Larger randomized controlled trials are required to confirm our findings.
慢性肾病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术的比较
背景:冠状动脉血运重建与多支冠状动脉疾病(MV-CAD)和慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)患者较好的短期和长期预后相关。然而,使用冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)或使用药物洗脱支架(DES)的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的血运重建术是否更好仍不得而知。目的:比较合并多支血管CAD的CKD患者采用DES行多支PCI血运重建术与CABG血运重建术的住院和一年内主要心脑血管不良事件(MACCE)的结果。方法:回顾性分析一组eGFR小于60 ml/min的CKD合并多血管CAD患者的数据,这些患者接受了PCI或CABG的血运重建术,并比较了住院和一年的MAACE。结果:本研究共纳入565例患者,其中230例采用DES行多支PCI, 335例采用CABG。比较两个血运重建术组的住院MACCE,多支PCI患者的住院死亡率、脑血管事件(卒中/TIA)和总MACCE均显著低于CABG患者(p值= 0.03 &0.01,0.04分别)。当比较两个血运重建术组关于一年MACCE时,多支血管PCI患者的脑血管事件和总MACCE明显低于CABG患者(p值= 0.02 &0.03) # x0D公司;结论:这是一项回顾性研究,旨在确定哪种策略对合并多血管CAD的CKD患者的血运重建术更好;我们可以得出结论,对于CKD患者,使用DES的多血管PCI和多血管CAD在院内和一年的脑血管事故(TIA/卒中)以及总MACCE方面比CABG有优势。需要更大规模的随机对照试验来证实我们的发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信