CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

EXCELling in Left Main Intervention Impact of large periprocedural myocardial infarction on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting for left main disease: an analysis from the EXCEL trial Bypass Surgery or Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes C-reactive protein and prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention and bypass graft surgery for left main coronary artery disease: Analysis from the EXCEL trial Impact of Staging Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Left Main Artery Disease: Insights From the EXCEL Trial Contemporary Use and Trends in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States: An Analysis of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Research to Practice Initiative Access Site and Outcomes for Unprotected Left Main Stem Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis of the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Database A randomized clinical study comparing double kissing crush with provisional stenting for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the DKCRUSH-II (Double Kissing Crush versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions) trial

Original Research2009 Mar 5;360(10):961-72.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease

Serruys PW, Morice MC, SYNTAX Investigators.

FULL TEXT PDF


BACKGROUND - Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both).


METHODS - We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point--a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry.


RESULTS - Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003).


CONCLUSIONS - CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.)

 

2009 Massachusetts Medical Society