JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2019
Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Saphenous Vein Grafts With and Without Embolic Protection Devices.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Shoaib Ahmad, Kinnaird Tim, Curzen Nick, Ludman Peter, Smith David, Khoo Chee W, Kontopantelis Evangelos, Rashid Muhammad, Mohamed Mohamed, Nolan James, Zaman Azfar, Mamas Mamas A, British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the early (inpatient and 30-day) and late (1-year) outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in saphenous vein grafts (SVGs), with and without the use of embolic protection devices (EPD), in a large, contemporary, unselected national cohort from the database of the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society.
BACKGROUND: There are limited, and discrepant, data on the clinical benefits of the adjunctive use of EPDs during PCI to SVGs in the contemporary era.
METHODS: A longitudinal cohort of patients (2007 to 2014, n = 20,642) who underwent PCI to SVGs in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database was formed. Clinical, demographic, procedural, and outcome data were analyzed by dividing into 2 groups: no EPD (PCI to SVGs without EPDs, n = 17,730) and EPD (PCI to SVGs with EPDs, n = 2,912).
RESULTS: Patients in the EPD group were older, had more comorbidities, and had a higher prevalence of moderate to severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Mortality was lower in the EPD group during hospital admission (0.70% vs. 1.29%; p = 0.008) and at 30 days (1.44% vs. 2.01%; p = 0.04) but similar at 1 year (6.22% vs. 6.01%; p = 0.67). Following multivariate analyses, no significant difference in mortality was observed during index admission (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42 to 1.19; p = 0.19), at 30 days (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.25; p = 0.45), and at 1 year (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.11; p = 0.41), along with similar rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.62; p = 0.39) and stroke (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.20 to 2.35; p = 0.54). In propensity score-matched analyses, lower inpatient mortality was observed in the EPD group (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.80; p = 0.002), although the adjusted risk for the periprocedural no-reflow or slow-flow phenomenon was higher in patients in whom EPDs were used (OR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.71 to 2.73; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary cohort, EPDs were used more commonly in higher risk patients but were associated with similar clinical outcomes in multivariate analyses. Lower inpatient mortality was observed in the EPD group in univariate and propensity score-matched analyses.
BACKGROUND: There are limited, and discrepant, data on the clinical benefits of the adjunctive use of EPDs during PCI to SVGs in the contemporary era.
METHODS: A longitudinal cohort of patients (2007 to 2014, n = 20,642) who underwent PCI to SVGs in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database was formed. Clinical, demographic, procedural, and outcome data were analyzed by dividing into 2 groups: no EPD (PCI to SVGs without EPDs, n = 17,730) and EPD (PCI to SVGs with EPDs, n = 2,912).
RESULTS: Patients in the EPD group were older, had more comorbidities, and had a higher prevalence of moderate to severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Mortality was lower in the EPD group during hospital admission (0.70% vs. 1.29%; p = 0.008) and at 30 days (1.44% vs. 2.01%; p = 0.04) but similar at 1 year (6.22% vs. 6.01%; p = 0.67). Following multivariate analyses, no significant difference in mortality was observed during index admission (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42 to 1.19; p = 0.19), at 30 days (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.25; p = 0.45), and at 1 year (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.11; p = 0.41), along with similar rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.62; p = 0.39) and stroke (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.20 to 2.35; p = 0.54). In propensity score-matched analyses, lower inpatient mortality was observed in the EPD group (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.80; p = 0.002), although the adjusted risk for the periprocedural no-reflow or slow-flow phenomenon was higher in patients in whom EPDs were used (OR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.71 to 2.73; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary cohort, EPDs were used more commonly in higher risk patients but were associated with similar clinical outcomes in multivariate analyses. Lower inpatient mortality was observed in the EPD group in univariate and propensity score-matched analyses.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedCoronary Artery BypassDatabases, FactualEmbolic Protection DevicesFemaleGraft Occlusion, VascularHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedNo-Reflow PhenomenonPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSaphenous VeinStrokeTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomVascular Patency