左主干冠状动脉疾病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术后的结果:TOkai左主干血运重建策略(耐受)研究

IF 5.8 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Thitima Limjaroen, Yoshihisa Kinoshita, Yuki Suzuka, Yoshihiro Goto, Jyunji Yanagisawa, Yoriyasu Suzuki, Hideki Kitamura, Munenori Okubo, Yoshiaki Kawase, Hitoshi Matsuo, Yutaka Koyama, Yasuhide Okawa, Takahiko Suzuki
{"title":"左主干冠状动脉疾病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术后的结果:TOkai左主干血运重建策略(耐受)研究","authors":"Thitima Limjaroen, Yoshihisa Kinoshita, Yuki Suzuka, Yoshihiro Goto, Jyunji Yanagisawa, Yoriyasu Suzuki, Hideki Kitamura, Munenori Okubo, Yoshiaki Kawase, Hitoshi Matsuo, Yutaka Koyama, Yasuhide Okawa, Takahiko Suzuki","doi":"10.1007/s12928-025-01185-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is still controversial for patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. This multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of LMCA disease patients who underwent PCI or CABG. We reviewed 875 consecutive patients diagnosed with LMCA disease between January 2009 and December 2020 who underwent coronary revascularization by PCI (n = 404) or CABG (n = 471). A one-to-one propensity score matching was employed to control the potential biases. The primary outcome was any major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which were composed of all causes of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Before propensity score matching, both groups significantly differed in essential baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing PCI were significantly older (age 72.4 vs. 70.5 years). They had a better baseline left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 59.1% vs. 55.8%). Moreover, patients in the PCI group had less coronary artery disease burden, such as less frequency of SYNTAX scores ≥ 33 (25.1% vs. 49.0%) and true left main bifurcation disease (18.6% vs. 33.1%). After propensity score analysis, 191 pairs of patients were successfully matched, and the median follow-up time was 4.5 years. A primary outcome event occurred in 8.9% of the patients in the PCI group and 15.2% in the CABG group (HR 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-1.28; P = 0.253). All causes of death were lower in the PCI group than in the CABG group (8.4% vs. 13.6%; P = 0.347), but the difference was insignificant. In PCI and CABG groups, the incidence of cardiovascular death (1.6% vs. 1.1%), myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 1.1%), and stroke (0% vs. 1.6%) were also not significantly different. However, the incidence of any revascularization and hospitalization for heart failure tended to be higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group, but the difference was not significant. In this propensity-matched study, PCI showed a statistically insignificant difference in all causes of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with CABG for the treatment of LMCA disease. Furthermore, PCI showed no statistically significant difference compared to CABG in overall endpoints, including any revascularization.</p>","PeriodicalId":9439,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in patient with left main coronary artery disease: the TOkai LEft main RevAscularizatioN sTrategy (TOLERANT) study.\",\"authors\":\"Thitima Limjaroen, Yoshihisa Kinoshita, Yuki Suzuka, Yoshihiro Goto, Jyunji Yanagisawa, Yoriyasu Suzuki, Hideki Kitamura, Munenori Okubo, Yoshiaki Kawase, Hitoshi Matsuo, Yutaka Koyama, Yasuhide Okawa, Takahiko Suzuki\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12928-025-01185-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is still controversial for patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. This multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of LMCA disease patients who underwent PCI or CABG. We reviewed 875 consecutive patients diagnosed with LMCA disease between January 2009 and December 2020 who underwent coronary revascularization by PCI (n = 404) or CABG (n = 471). A one-to-one propensity score matching was employed to control the potential biases. The primary outcome was any major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which were composed of all causes of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Before propensity score matching, both groups significantly differed in essential baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing PCI were significantly older (age 72.4 vs. 70.5 years). They had a better baseline left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 59.1% vs. 55.8%). Moreover, patients in the PCI group had less coronary artery disease burden, such as less frequency of SYNTAX scores ≥ 33 (25.1% vs. 49.0%) and true left main bifurcation disease (18.6% vs. 33.1%). After propensity score analysis, 191 pairs of patients were successfully matched, and the median follow-up time was 4.5 years. A primary outcome event occurred in 8.9% of the patients in the PCI group and 15.2% in the CABG group (HR 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-1.28; P = 0.253). All causes of death were lower in the PCI group than in the CABG group (8.4% vs. 13.6%; P = 0.347), but the difference was insignificant. In PCI and CABG groups, the incidence of cardiovascular death (1.6% vs. 1.1%), myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 1.1%), and stroke (0% vs. 1.6%) were also not significantly different. However, the incidence of any revascularization and hospitalization for heart failure tended to be higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group, but the difference was not significant. In this propensity-matched study, PCI showed a statistically insignificant difference in all causes of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with CABG for the treatment of LMCA disease. Furthermore, PCI showed no statistically significant difference compared to CABG in overall endpoints, including any revascularization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-025-01185-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-025-01185-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于左主干冠状动脉(LMCA)疾病患者,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的结果仍然存在争议。本多中心队列研究旨在评估LMCA患者行PCI或CABG的临床结果。我们回顾了2009年1月至2020年12月期间诊断为LMCA疾病的875例连续患者,他们接受了PCI (n = 404)或CABG (n = 471)的冠状动脉重建术。采用一对一倾向评分匹配来控制潜在偏差。主要终点是任何主要心脏不良事件(MACE),包括所有死因、心肌梗死或中风。在倾向评分匹配前,两组在基本基线特征上有显著差异。接受PCI的患者明显更老(72.4岁vs 70.5岁)。他们有更好的基线左心室功能(左心室射血分数(LVEF) 59.1%比55.8%)。此外,PCI组患者的冠状动脉疾病负担较轻,如SYNTAX评分≥33(25.1%比49.0%)和真左主干分叉疾病(18.6%比33.1%)的频率较低。经倾向评分分析,191对患者成功匹配,中位随访时间为4.5年。PCI组有8.9%的患者出现主要结局事件,CABG组有15.2% (HR 0.70; 95%可信区间[CI] 0.38-1.28; P = 0.253)。PCI组所有死亡原因均低于CABG组(8.4%比13.6%,P = 0.347),但差异不显著。在PCI组和CABG组中,心血管死亡(1.6% vs. 1.1%)、心肌梗死(1.1% vs. 1.1%)和卒中(0% vs. 1.6%)的发生率也无显著差异。然而,任何血运重建术和心力衰竭住院的发生率在PCI组往往高于CABG组,但差异不显著。在这项倾向匹配的研究中,与CABG相比,PCI在治疗LMCA疾病的所有死因、心肌梗死或卒中方面的差异在统计学上不显著。此外,与CABG相比,PCI在包括任何血运重建术在内的总终点上没有统计学上的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in patient with left main coronary artery disease: the TOkai LEft main RevAscularizatioN sTrategy (TOLERANT) study.

The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is still controversial for patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. This multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of LMCA disease patients who underwent PCI or CABG. We reviewed 875 consecutive patients diagnosed with LMCA disease between January 2009 and December 2020 who underwent coronary revascularization by PCI (n = 404) or CABG (n = 471). A one-to-one propensity score matching was employed to control the potential biases. The primary outcome was any major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which were composed of all causes of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Before propensity score matching, both groups significantly differed in essential baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing PCI were significantly older (age 72.4 vs. 70.5 years). They had a better baseline left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 59.1% vs. 55.8%). Moreover, patients in the PCI group had less coronary artery disease burden, such as less frequency of SYNTAX scores ≥ 33 (25.1% vs. 49.0%) and true left main bifurcation disease (18.6% vs. 33.1%). After propensity score analysis, 191 pairs of patients were successfully matched, and the median follow-up time was 4.5 years. A primary outcome event occurred in 8.9% of the patients in the PCI group and 15.2% in the CABG group (HR 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-1.28; P = 0.253). All causes of death were lower in the PCI group than in the CABG group (8.4% vs. 13.6%; P = 0.347), but the difference was insignificant. In PCI and CABG groups, the incidence of cardiovascular death (1.6% vs. 1.1%), myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 1.1%), and stroke (0% vs. 1.6%) were also not significantly different. However, the incidence of any revascularization and hospitalization for heart failure tended to be higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group, but the difference was not significant. In this propensity-matched study, PCI showed a statistically insignificant difference in all causes of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with CABG for the treatment of LMCA disease. Furthermore, PCI showed no statistically significant difference compared to CABG in overall endpoints, including any 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
Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics
Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) is an international journal covering the field of cardiovascular disease and includes cardiac (coronary and noncoronary) and peripheral interventions and therapeutics. Articles are subject to peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability. CVIT is an official journal of The Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics.
×
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