Coronary artery disease · 2019
Sympathectomy versus conventional treatment for refractory coronary artery spasm.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lin Yaowang, Liu Huadong, Yu Danqing, Wu Meishan, Liu Qiyun, Liang Xinjian, Pang Xinli, Chen Keqi, Luo Linjie, Dong Shaohong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is no clear consensus on the potential efficacy and indications for sympathectomy to prevent recurrence of vasospasm in patients with refractory coronary artery spasm (CAS).
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of sympathectomy with those of conventional treatment in patients with refractory CAS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with refractory CAS were randomly assigned to sympathectomy group (n = 37) or conventional treatment group (n = 42). The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) episodes (including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, heart failure, and life-threatening arrhythmia), and the secondary end point was death from any cause within 24 months after randomization.
RESULTS: During the follow-up period of 24 months, the incidence of MACE in the sympathectomy and conventional treatment groups was 16.22 and 61.90%, respectively (P = 0.0001). All-cause death as the secondary end point occurred in zero and six (14.29%) patients, respectively (P = 0.0272). The Kaplan-Meier curve for MACE and all-cause death showed a significant between-group difference (log-rank test, P = 0.0013 and 0.0176, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional treatment, sympathectomy significantly reduced the composite end point of MACE episodes and death from any cause in patients with refractory CAS by effectively preventing recurrence of vasospasm.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of sympathectomy with those of conventional treatment in patients with refractory CAS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with refractory CAS were randomly assigned to sympathectomy group (n = 37) or conventional treatment group (n = 42). The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) episodes (including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, heart failure, and life-threatening arrhythmia), and the secondary end point was death from any cause within 24 months after randomization.
RESULTS: During the follow-up period of 24 months, the incidence of MACE in the sympathectomy and conventional treatment groups was 16.22 and 61.90%, respectively (P = 0.0001). All-cause death as the secondary end point occurred in zero and six (14.29%) patients, respectively (P = 0.0272). The Kaplan-Meier curve for MACE and all-cause death showed a significant between-group difference (log-rank test, P = 0.0013 and 0.0176, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional treatment, sympathectomy significantly reduced the composite end point of MACE episodes and death from any cause in patients with refractory CAS by effectively preventing recurrence of vasospasm.