稳定期冠状动脉疾病患者有创与保守治疗的比较结果:一项基于风险分层的假设生成研究

IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Zizhao Qi, Miaohan Qiu, Ying Xu, Kai Xu, Haiwei Liu, Xiaozeng Wang, Jing Li, Bin Liu, Shaoliang Chen, Jiyan Chen, Yaling Han, Yi Li
{"title":"稳定期冠状动脉疾病患者有创与保守治疗的比较结果:一项基于风险分层的假设生成研究","authors":"Zizhao Qi, Miaohan Qiu, Ying Xu, Kai Xu, Haiwei Liu, Xiaozeng Wang, Jing Li, Bin Liu, Shaoliang Chen, Jiyan Chen, Yaling Han, Yi Li","doi":"10.1186/s12916-025-04020-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve the long-term prognosis of patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) in comparison to conservative treatment remains controversial. The present study sought to evaluate the impacts of initial invasive versus conservative strategy on long-term clinical outcomes for patients with SCAD stratified by risk scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a sub-analysis of the multicenter, observational Optimal antiPlatelet Therapy for Chinese patients with Coronary Artery Disease (OPT-CAD) study. Clinical outcomes were compared in SCAD patients who initially received PCI (invasive strategy) or conservative treatment according to risk stratification by OPT-CAD score. The primary outcome was ischemic events at 5 years, composed of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5, and 3 or 5 bleeding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The conservative group comprised 1767 (58.0%) patients and the invasive group comprised 1278 (42.0%) patients. Overall, invasive strategy did not reduce the risk of ischemic events compared with conservative strategy but was associated with an increased risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-2.26; P = 0.009). Similar results were observed in the low-risk patient subset (N = 2030). While in the moderate-to-high-risk subset (N = 1015), invasive strategy was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic events (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95; P = 0.02) and all-cause death (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-1.03; P = 0.07), and with no excessive risk of bleeding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Invasive strategy could not confer additional clinical benefits in patients with SCAD compared to conservative strategy, except in patients at moderate-to-high risk. The OPT-CAD risk score may be valuable to the guidance of optimal treatment strategy in SCAD patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":9188,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medicine","volume":"23 1","pages":"199"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11974019/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative outcomes of invasive versus conservative strategy in stable coronary artery disease patients: a risk-stratification-based hypothesis-generative study.\",\"authors\":\"Zizhao Qi, Miaohan Qiu, Ying Xu, Kai Xu, Haiwei Liu, Xiaozeng Wang, Jing Li, Bin Liu, Shaoliang Chen, Jiyan Chen, Yaling Han, Yi Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12916-025-04020-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve the long-term prognosis of patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) in comparison to conservative treatment remains controversial. The present study sought to evaluate the impacts of initial invasive versus conservative strategy on long-term clinical outcomes for patients with SCAD stratified by risk scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a sub-analysis of the multicenter, observational Optimal antiPlatelet Therapy for Chinese patients with Coronary Artery Disease (OPT-CAD) study. Clinical outcomes were compared in SCAD patients who initially received PCI (invasive strategy) or conservative treatment according to risk stratification by OPT-CAD score. The primary outcome was ischemic events at 5 years, composed of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5, and 3 or 5 bleeding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The conservative group comprised 1767 (58.0%) patients and the invasive group comprised 1278 (42.0%) patients. Overall, invasive strategy did not reduce the risk of ischemic events compared with conservative strategy but was associated with an increased risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-2.26; P = 0.009). Similar results were observed in the low-risk patient subset (N = 2030). While in the moderate-to-high-risk subset (N = 1015), invasive strategy was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic events (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95; P = 0.02) and all-cause death (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-1.03; P = 0.07), and with no excessive risk of bleeding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Invasive strategy could not confer additional clinical benefits in patients with SCAD compared to conservative strategy, except in patients at moderate-to-high risk. The OPT-CAD risk score may be valuable to the guidance of optimal treatment strategy in SCAD patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medicine\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"199\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11974019/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-04020-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-04020-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与保守治疗相比,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)是否能改善稳定性冠状动脉疾病(SCAD)患者的长期预后仍存在争议。本研究旨在评估初始侵入与保守策略对SCAD患者长期临床结果的影响,并按风险评分分层。方法:这是一项多中心、观察性的中国冠状动脉疾病患者最佳抗血小板治疗(OPT-CAD)研究的亚分析。根据OPT-CAD评分进行风险分层,比较最初接受PCI(侵入性策略)或保守治疗的SCAD患者的临床结果。主要终点是5年的缺血性事件,包括心源性死亡、心肌梗死和缺血性卒中。次要结局包括全因死亡、学术研究联盟(BARC) 2、3或5型出血以及3或5型出血。结果:保守组1767例(58.0%),侵袭组1278例(42.0%)。总体而言,与保守策略相比,侵入性策略并没有降低缺血性事件的风险,但与BARC 2、3或5出血的风险增加有关(校正风险比(HR), 1.59;95%置信区间(CI), 1.13-2.26;p = 0.009)。在低危患者亚组(N = 2030)中也观察到类似的结果。而在中高风险亚组(N = 1015)中,侵入性策略与缺血性事件风险降低相关(HR, 0.67;95% ci, 0.48-0.95;P = 0.02)和全因死亡(HR, 0.73;95% ci, 0.51-1.03;P = 0.07),且无过度出血风险。结论:除中高风险患者外,侵袭性策略与保守策略相比不能给SCAD患者带来额外的临床益处。OPT-CAD风险评分可能对指导SCAD患者的最佳治疗策略有价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative outcomes of invasive versus conservative strategy in stable coronary artery disease patients: a risk-stratification-based hypothesis-generative study.

Background: Whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve the long-term prognosis of patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) in comparison to conservative treatment remains controversial. The present study sought to evaluate the impacts of initial invasive versus conservative strategy on long-term clinical outcomes for patients with SCAD stratified by risk scores.

Methods: This was a sub-analysis of the multicenter, observational Optimal antiPlatelet Therapy for Chinese patients with Coronary Artery Disease (OPT-CAD) study. Clinical outcomes were compared in SCAD patients who initially received PCI (invasive strategy) or conservative treatment according to risk stratification by OPT-CAD score. The primary outcome was ischemic events at 5 years, composed of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5, and 3 or 5 bleeding.

Results: The conservative group comprised 1767 (58.0%) patients and the invasive group comprised 1278 (42.0%) patients. Overall, invasive strategy did not reduce the risk of ischemic events compared with conservative strategy but was associated with an increased risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-2.26; P = 0.009). Similar results were observed in the low-risk patient subset (N = 2030). While in the moderate-to-high-risk subset (N = 1015), invasive strategy was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic events (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95; P = 0.02) and all-cause death (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-1.03; P = 0.07), and with no excessive risk of bleeding.

Conclusions: Invasive strategy could not confer additional clinical benefits in patients with SCAD compared to conservative strategy, except in patients at moderate-to-high risk. The OPT-CAD risk score may be valuable to the guidance of optimal treatment strategy in SCAD patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medicine
BMC Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
435
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medicine is an open access, transparent peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the flagship journal of the BMC series and publishes outstanding and influential research in various areas including clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. In addition to research articles, the journal also publishes stimulating debates, reviews, unique forum articles, and concise tutorials. All articles published in BMC Medicine are included in various databases such as Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAS, Citebase, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, OAIster, SCImago, Scopus, SOCOLAR, and Zetoc.
×
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