经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术在三支冠状动脉疾病和糖尿病患者中的应用。

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Journal of the American Heart Association Pub Date : 2025-06-17 Epub Date: 2025-06-11 DOI:10.1161/JAHA.124.039663
Ryaan El-Andari, Nicholas Fialka, Jimmy Kang, Yongzhe Hong, Padma Kaul, Finlay A McAlister, William Kent, Jeevan Nagendran, Jayan Nagendran
{"title":"经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术在三支冠状动脉疾病和糖尿病患者中的应用。","authors":"Ryaan El-Andari, Nicholas Fialka, Jimmy Kang, Yongzhe Hong, Padma Kaul, Finlay A McAlister, William Kent, Jeevan Nagendran, Jayan Nagendran","doi":"10.1161/JAHA.124.039663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been associated with reduced mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) and diabetes. The majority of previous studies have been limited to follow-up of <10 years. Herein, we compared CABG and PCI in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease and diabetes with a maximum long-term follow-up of 14 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with diabetes and 3-vessel coronary artery disease but without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who underwent coronary angiography followed by CABG or PCI from 2009 to 2018 were included in this study. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Outcomes were adjusted for age, sex, and clinical comorbidities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1210 patients underwent PCI (median follow-up, 9.1 years) while 477 underwent CABG (median follow-up, 8.1 years). Patients who underwent CABG were less likely to experience mortality (49.6% versus 57.6%, <i>P</i>=0.003, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.91]), myocardial infarction (15.6% versus 28.1%, <i>P</i><0.001, aHR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.33-0.61]), or require repeat revascularization (7.7% versus 26.9%, <i>P</i><0.001, aHR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.14-0.30]) at longest follow-up. Risk of rehospitalization (82.6% versus 83.4%, <i>P</i>=0.656) and stroke (11.6% versus 12.2%, <i>P</i>=0.794) did not significantly differ between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, we describe one of the longest follow-up periods for patients with diabetes and 3-vessel coronary artery disease who underwent CABG or PCI and confirmed that the shorter-term benefits seen in randomized trials do translate into longer-term reductions in risk of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization.</p>","PeriodicalId":54370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":" ","pages":"e039663"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With 3-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease and Diabetes.\",\"authors\":\"Ryaan El-Andari, Nicholas Fialka, Jimmy Kang, Yongzhe Hong, Padma Kaul, Finlay A McAlister, William Kent, Jeevan Nagendran, Jayan Nagendran\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/JAHA.124.039663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been associated with reduced mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) and diabetes. The majority of previous studies have been limited to follow-up of <10 years. Herein, we compared CABG and PCI in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease and diabetes with a maximum long-term follow-up of 14 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with diabetes and 3-vessel coronary artery disease but without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who underwent coronary angiography followed by CABG or PCI from 2009 to 2018 were included in this study. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Outcomes were adjusted for age, sex, and clinical comorbidities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1210 patients underwent PCI (median follow-up, 9.1 years) while 477 underwent CABG (median follow-up, 8.1 years). Patients who underwent CABG were less likely to experience mortality (49.6% versus 57.6%, <i>P</i>=0.003, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.91]), myocardial infarction (15.6% versus 28.1%, <i>P</i><0.001, aHR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.33-0.61]), or require repeat revascularization (7.7% versus 26.9%, <i>P</i><0.001, aHR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.14-0.30]) at longest follow-up. Risk of rehospitalization (82.6% versus 83.4%, <i>P</i>=0.656) and stroke (11.6% versus 12.2%, <i>P</i>=0.794) did not significantly differ between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, we describe one of the longest follow-up periods for patients with diabetes and 3-vessel coronary artery disease who underwent CABG or PCI and confirmed that the shorter-term benefits seen in randomized trials do translate into longer-term reductions in risk of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e039663\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.039663\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.039663","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)相比,冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)与3支冠状动脉疾病(CAD)和糖尿病患者的死亡率、心肌梗死和重复血运重建术相关。先前的大多数研究仅限于随访方法:2009年至2018年期间接受冠状动脉造影后CABG或PCI的糖尿病和3支冠状动脉疾病但无st段抬高型心肌梗死的患者纳入本研究。主要结局是死亡率,次要结局包括心肌梗死、卒中或重复血运重建术。结果根据年龄、性别和临床合并症进行调整。结果:1210例患者接受了PCI(中位随访,9.1年),477例患者接受了CABG(中位随访,8.1年)。接受CABG的患者发生死亡率(49.6%对57.6%,P=0.003,校正风险比[aHR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.91])、心肌梗死(15.6%对28.1%,PPP=0.656)和卒中(11.6%对12.2%,P=0.794)的可能性较低,组间无显著差异。结论:在这项研究中,我们描述了对接受CABG或PCI治疗的糖尿病和三支冠状动脉疾病患者的最长随访期之一,并证实随机试验中看到的短期益处确实转化为死亡、心肌梗死或重复血运重建风险的长期降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With 3-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease and Diabetes.

Background: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been associated with reduced mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) and diabetes. The majority of previous studies have been limited to follow-up of <10 years. Herein, we compared CABG and PCI in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease and diabetes with a maximum long-term follow-up of 14 years.

Methods: Patients with diabetes and 3-vessel coronary artery disease but without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who underwent coronary angiography followed by CABG or PCI from 2009 to 2018 were included in this study. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Outcomes were adjusted for age, sex, and clinical comorbidities.

Results: A total of 1210 patients underwent PCI (median follow-up, 9.1 years) while 477 underwent CABG (median follow-up, 8.1 years). Patients who underwent CABG were less likely to experience mortality (49.6% versus 57.6%, P=0.003, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.91]), myocardial infarction (15.6% versus 28.1%, P<0.001, aHR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.33-0.61]), or require repeat revascularization (7.7% versus 26.9%, P<0.001, aHR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.14-0.30]) at longest follow-up. Risk of rehospitalization (82.6% versus 83.4%, P=0.656) and stroke (11.6% versus 12.2%, P=0.794) did not significantly differ between groups.

Conclusions: In this study, we describe one of the longest follow-up periods for patients with diabetes and 3-vessel coronary artery disease who underwent CABG or PCI and confirmed that the shorter-term benefits seen in randomized trials do translate into longer-term reductions in risk of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization.

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
Journal of the American Heart Association
Journal of the American Heart Association CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
1749
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: As an Open Access journal, JAHA - Journal of the American Heart Association is rapidly and freely available, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice. JAHA is an authoritative, peer-reviewed Open Access journal focusing on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. JAHA provides a global forum for basic and clinical research and timely reviews on cardiovascular disease and stroke. As an Open Access journal, its content is free on publication to read, download, and share, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信