在 ISCHEMIA 试验中,对患有三血管冠状动脉疾病的参与者进行血管重建与保守治疗的结果对比。

IF 7.6 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Eurointervention Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI:10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00240
Sripal Bangalore, Grace Rhodes, David J Maron, Rebecca Anthopolos, Sean M O'Brien, Philip G Jones, Daniel B Mark, Harmony R Reynolds, John A Spertus, Gregg W Stone, Harvey D White, Yifan Xu, Stephen E Fremes, Judith S Hochman, On Behalf Of The Ischemia Research Group
{"title":"在 ISCHEMIA 试验中,对患有三血管冠状动脉疾病的参与者进行血管重建与保守治疗的结果对比。","authors":"Sripal Bangalore, Grace Rhodes, David J Maron, Rebecca Anthopolos, Sean M O'Brien, Philip G Jones, Daniel B Mark, Harmony R Reynolds, John A Spertus, Gregg W Stone, Harvey D White, Yifan Xu, Stephen E Fremes, Judith S Hochman, On Behalf Of The Ischemia Research Group","doi":"10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether revascularisation (REV) improves outcomes in patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease (3V-CAD) is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>Our objective was to evaluate outcomes with REV (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]) versus medical therapy in patients with 3V-CAD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ISCHEMIA participants with 3V-CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography without prior CABG were included. Outcomes following initial invasive management (INV) with REV (PCI or CABG) versus initial conservative management (CON) with medical therapy alone were evaluated. Regression modelling was used to estimate the outcomes if all participants were to undergo prompt REV versus those assigned to CON. Outcomes were cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction (MI), death, CV death, and quality of life. Bayesian posterior probability for benefit (Pr [benefit]) for 1 percentage point lower 4-year rates with REV versus CON were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1,236 participants with 3V-CAD (612 INV/624 CON), REV was associated with lower 4-year CV death/MI (adjusted 4-year difference: -4.4, 95% credible interval [CrI] -8.7 to -0.3 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=94.8%) when compared with CON, with similar results for PCI versus CON (-5.8, 95% CrI: -10.8 to -0.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=96.4%) and CABG versus CON (-3.7, 95% CrI: -8.8 to 1.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=84.7%). Adjusted 4-year REV versus CON differences were as follows: death -1.2 (95% CrI: -4.7 to 2.2) percentage points, CV death -2.3 (95% CrI: -5.5 to 0.8) percentage points, with similar results for PCI and for CABG. The Pr (benefit) for death with REV (PCI or CABG) versus CON was 49-63%. The adjusted 12-month Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 summary score differences favoured REV: REV versus CON 4.6 (95% CrI: 2.7-6.4) percentage points; PCI versus CON 3.6 (95% CrI: 1.2-5.8) percentage points and CABG versus CON 4.3 (95% CrI: 1.5-6.9) percentage points with high Pr (benefit).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In participants with 3V-CAD, REV (either PCI or CABG) was associated with a lower 4-year CV death/MI rate and improved quality of life, with similar results for PCI versus CON and CABG versus CON. The differences in all-cause mortality between REV and CON were small with wide confidence intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01471522).</p>","PeriodicalId":54378,"journal":{"name":"Eurointervention","volume":"20 20","pages":"e1276-e1287"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11472139/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes with revascularisation versus conservative management of participants with 3-vessel coronary artery disease in the ISCHEMIA trial.\",\"authors\":\"Sripal Bangalore, Grace Rhodes, David J Maron, Rebecca Anthopolos, Sean M O'Brien, Philip G Jones, Daniel B Mark, Harmony R Reynolds, John A Spertus, Gregg W Stone, Harvey D White, Yifan Xu, Stephen E Fremes, Judith S Hochman, On Behalf Of The Ischemia Research Group\",\"doi\":\"10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether revascularisation (REV) improves outcomes in patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease (3V-CAD) is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>Our objective was to evaluate outcomes with REV (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]) versus medical therapy in patients with 3V-CAD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ISCHEMIA participants with 3V-CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography without prior CABG were included. Outcomes following initial invasive management (INV) with REV (PCI or CABG) versus initial conservative management (CON) with medical therapy alone were evaluated. Regression modelling was used to estimate the outcomes if all participants were to undergo prompt REV versus those assigned to CON. Outcomes were cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction (MI), death, CV death, and quality of life. Bayesian posterior probability for benefit (Pr [benefit]) for 1 percentage point lower 4-year rates with REV versus CON were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1,236 participants with 3V-CAD (612 INV/624 CON), REV was associated with lower 4-year CV death/MI (adjusted 4-year difference: -4.4, 95% credible interval [CrI] -8.7 to -0.3 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=94.8%) when compared with CON, with similar results for PCI versus CON (-5.8, 95% CrI: -10.8 to -0.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=96.4%) and CABG versus CON (-3.7, 95% CrI: -8.8 to 1.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=84.7%). Adjusted 4-year REV versus CON differences were as follows: death -1.2 (95% CrI: -4.7 to 2.2) percentage points, CV death -2.3 (95% CrI: -5.5 to 0.8) percentage points, with similar results for PCI and for CABG. The Pr (benefit) for death with REV (PCI or CABG) versus CON was 49-63%. The adjusted 12-month Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 summary score differences favoured REV: REV versus CON 4.6 (95% CrI: 2.7-6.4) percentage points; PCI versus CON 3.6 (95% CrI: 1.2-5.8) percentage points and CABG versus CON 4.3 (95% CrI: 1.5-6.9) percentage points with high Pr (benefit).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In participants with 3V-CAD, REV (either PCI or CABG) was associated with a lower 4-year CV death/MI rate and improved quality of life, with similar results for PCI versus CON and CABG versus CON. The differences in all-cause mortality between REV and CON were small with wide confidence intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01471522).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eurointervention\",\"volume\":\"20 20\",\"pages\":\"e1276-e1287\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11472139/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eurointervention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00240\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eurointervention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00240","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:我们的目标是评估三血管冠状动脉疾病(3V-CAD)患者接受血管重建(REV)(经皮冠状动脉介入治疗[PCI]或冠状动脉旁路移植手术[CABG])与药物治疗的疗效:纳入的 ISCHEMIA 参与者均为冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影显示为 3V-CAD 且未进行过 CABG 的患者。评估了最初采用REV(PCI或CABG)进行侵入性治疗(INV)与最初仅采用药物治疗进行保守治疗(CON)的结果。采用回归模型估算了如果所有参与者都立即接受REV治疗与接受CON治疗的结果。结果包括心血管(CV)死亡/心肌梗死(MI)、死亡、CV死亡和生活质量。评估了REV与CON相比,4年获益率低1个百分点的贝叶斯后验概率(Pr [获益]):结果:在 1236 名 3V-CAD 患者中(612 名 INV/624 名 CON),REV 与较低的 4 年 CV 死亡/MI 率相关(调整后的 4 年差异:-4.4,95% 可信度差异):-与CON相比,PCI与CON(-5.8,95% CrI:-10.8至-0.5个百分点,Pr[获益]=96.4%)和CABG与CON(-3.7,95% CrI:-8.8至1.5个百分点,Pr[获益]=84.7%)的结果相似。调整后的4年REV与CON的差异如下:死亡-1.2(95% CrI:-4.7至2.2)个百分点,CV死亡-2.3(95% CrI:-5.5至0.8)个百分点,PCI和CABG的结果相似。REV(PCI或CABG)与CON相比,死亡的Pr(获益)为49-63%。调整后的12个月西雅图心绞痛问卷-7总分差异有利于REV:REV与CON相比,差异为4.6(95% CrI:2.7-6.4)个百分点;PCI与CON相比,差异为3.6(95% CrI:1.2-5.8)个百分点;CABG与CON相比,差异为4.3(95% CrI:1.5-6.9)个百分点,Pr(获益)较高:结论:在3V-CAD患者中,REV(PCI或CABG)可降低4年CV死亡率/MI率并改善生活质量,PCI与CON、CABG与CON的结果相似。REV与CON的全因死亡率差异较小,置信区间较大。(ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01471522)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Outcomes with revascularisation versus conservative management of participants with 3-vessel coronary artery disease in the ISCHEMIA trial.

Background: Whether revascularisation (REV) improves outcomes in patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease (3V-CAD) is uncertain.

Aims: Our objective was to evaluate outcomes with REV (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]) versus medical therapy in patients with 3V-CAD.

Methods: ISCHEMIA participants with 3V-CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography without prior CABG were included. Outcomes following initial invasive management (INV) with REV (PCI or CABG) versus initial conservative management (CON) with medical therapy alone were evaluated. Regression modelling was used to estimate the outcomes if all participants were to undergo prompt REV versus those assigned to CON. Outcomes were cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction (MI), death, CV death, and quality of life. Bayesian posterior probability for benefit (Pr [benefit]) for 1 percentage point lower 4-year rates with REV versus CON were evaluated.

Results: Among 1,236 participants with 3V-CAD (612 INV/624 CON), REV was associated with lower 4-year CV death/MI (adjusted 4-year difference: -4.4, 95% credible interval [CrI] -8.7 to -0.3 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=94.8%) when compared with CON, with similar results for PCI versus CON (-5.8, 95% CrI: -10.8 to -0.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=96.4%) and CABG versus CON (-3.7, 95% CrI: -8.8 to 1.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=84.7%). Adjusted 4-year REV versus CON differences were as follows: death -1.2 (95% CrI: -4.7 to 2.2) percentage points, CV death -2.3 (95% CrI: -5.5 to 0.8) percentage points, with similar results for PCI and for CABG. The Pr (benefit) for death with REV (PCI or CABG) versus CON was 49-63%. The adjusted 12-month Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 summary score differences favoured REV: REV versus CON 4.6 (95% CrI: 2.7-6.4) percentage points; PCI versus CON 3.6 (95% CrI: 1.2-5.8) percentage points and CABG versus CON 4.3 (95% CrI: 1.5-6.9) percentage points with high Pr (benefit).

Conclusions: In participants with 3V-CAD, REV (either PCI or CABG) was associated with a lower 4-year CV death/MI rate and improved quality of life, with similar results for PCI versus CON and CABG versus CON. The differences in all-cause mortality between REV and CON were small with wide confidence intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01471522).

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
Eurointervention
Eurointervention CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
380
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: EuroIntervention Journal is an international, English language, peer-reviewed journal whose aim is to create a community of high quality research and education in the field of percutaneous and surgical cardiovascular interventions.
期刊最新文献
Early outcomes of the novel Myval THV series compared to SAPIEN THV series and Evolut THV series in individuals with severe aortic stenosis. TAVI with the ACURATE neo2 in severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: the Neo2 BAV Registry. Development and validation of the D-PACE scoring system to predict delayed high-grade conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Feasibility of redo-TAVI in the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 valve: a computed tomography study. Long-term survival after TAVI in low-flow, low-gradient aortic valve stenosis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1