CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

左主干支架

科研文章

荐读文献

Left Main Stenting: What We Have Learnt So Far? 2-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy The Current State of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Impact of different final optimization techniques on long-term clinical outcomes of left main cross-over stenting Novel developments in revascularization for left main coronary artery disease Bypass Surgery or Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting According to Lesion Site Results From the EXCEL Trial Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial Design and rationale for a randomised comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease: the EXCEL trial

Original Research2018 Aug 14;72(7):754-765.

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Left Main Revascularization With PCI or CABG in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: EXCEL Trial

Giustino G, Mehran R, Stone GW et al. Keywords: chronic kidney disease; CABG; PCI; EXCEL trail; outcome

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unclear.


OBJECTIVES - This study investigated the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate anatomical complexity according to baseline renal function from the multicenter randomized EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial.


METHODS - CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 using the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Acute renal failure (ARF) was defined as a serum creatinine increase 5.0 mg/dl from baseline or a new requirement for dialysis. The primary composite endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 3-year follow-up.


RESULTS - CKD was present in 361 of 1,869 randomized patients (19.3%) in whom baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was available. Patients with CKD had higher 3-year rates of the primary endpoint compared with those without CKD (20.8% vs. 13.5%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 2.09; p = 0.0005). ARF within 30 days occurred more commonly in patients with compared with those without CKD (5.0% vs. 0.8%; p < 0.0001), and was strongly associated with the 3-year risk of death, stroke, or MI (50.7% vs. 14.4%; HR: 4.59; 95% CI: 2.73 to 7.73; p < 0.0001). ARF occurred less commonly after revascularization with PCI compared with CABG both in patients with CKD (2.3% vs. 7.7%; HR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.87) and in those without CKD (0.3% vs. 1.3%; HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.90; pinteraction = 0.71). There were no significant differences in the rates of the primary composite endpoint after PCI and CABG in patients with CKD (23.4% vs. 18.1%; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.98) and without CKD (13.4% vs. 13.5%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.27; pinteraction = 0.38).


CONCLUSIONS - Patients with CKD undergoing revascularization for LMCAD in the EXCEL trial had increased rates of ARF and reduced event-free survival. ARF occurred less frequently after PCI compared with CABG. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG in terms of death, stroke, or MI at 3 years in patients with and without CKD. (EXCEL Clinical Trial [EXCEL]; NCT01205776).


Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.