论文部分内容阅读
[目的]比较冠状动脉三支病变患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(coronary artery bypass grafting,CABG)的预后。[方法]回顾性分析了首次行血运重建治疗的冠状动脉三支病变患者233例,其中PCI组160例,CABG组73例,比较两组患者2年的不良心脑血管事件(包括全因死亡;全因死亡和非致死性卒中/心肌梗死联合终点;再次血运重建术)。[结果]CABG组的2年再次血运重建率低于PCI组,但由于术后院内死亡率较高导致CABG组2年全因死亡发生率高于PCI组(P﹤0.05),2年主要不良心脑血管事件发生率(major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events,MACCE)、2年全因死亡和非致死性卒中/心肌梗死联合终点发生率两组间差异无统计学意义(P﹥0.05)。[结论]冠状动脉三支病变患者2年联合终点事件发生率两组间并无差异,但PCI组的2年再次血运重建率仍高于CABG组。
[Objective] To compare the prognosis of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in three coronary lesions. [Methods] A total of 233 patients with coronary artery disease undergoing revascularization for the first time were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 160 patients in the PCI group and 73 patients in the CABG group were retrospectively analyzed. Two years of adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (including all-cause Death; combination of all-cause and non-fatal stroke / myocardial infarction; revascularization). [Results] The 2-year revascularization rate in CABG group was lower than that in PCI group. However, the 2-year all-cause mortality rate in CABG group was higher than that in PCI group (P <0.05) due to the high postoperative in-hospital mortality rate. The incidence of adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), 2-year all-cause death and non-fatal stroke / myocardial infarction combined end-point incidence was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). [Conclusion] There is no difference between the two groups in the incidence of the two-year combined endpoint of coronary artery disease, but the 2-year revascularization rate in PCI group is still higher than CABG group.