切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华临床医师杂志(电子版) ›› 2020, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (04) : 289 -295. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2020.04.010

所属专题: 文献

循证医学

完全血运重建术对存在多支血管病变的急性冠状动脉综合征患者围手术期安全性的荟萃分析
单士平1, 鲍莉莉1, 刘钦亮1, 刘雨1, 张焕轶1,()   
  1. 1. 271000 山东泰安,山东省煤炭泰山疗养院心血管科
  • 收稿日期:2019-07-09 出版日期:2020-04-15
  • 通信作者: 张焕轶

Meta-analysis of safety of complete revacularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease

Shiping Shan1, Lili Bao1, Qinliang Liu1, Yu Liu1, Huanyi Zhang1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Taishan Coal Sanatorium, Taian 271000, China
  • Received:2019-07-09 Published:2020-04-15
  • Corresponding author: Huanyi Zhang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhang Huanyi, Email:
引用本文:

单士平, 鲍莉莉, 刘钦亮, 刘雨, 张焕轶. 完全血运重建术对存在多支血管病变的急性冠状动脉综合征患者围手术期安全性的荟萃分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(04): 289-295.

Shiping Shan, Lili Bao, Qinliang Liu, Yu Liu, Huanyi Zhang. Meta-analysis of safety of complete revacularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(04): 289-295.

目的

系统评价完全血运重建和部分血运重建对合并多支血管病变(MVD)的急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者围手术期的安全性。

方法

检索英文数据库:Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane Collaboration和中文数据库:中国期刊全文数据库、万方数据库、维普数据库,查阅目前已知的不同血运重建方式治疗合并MVD的ACS患者的随机对照试验,筛查并纳入符合要求的高质量文献,应用RevMan5.3软件系统评价应用不同血运重建方式[多支血管血运重建(MV-PCI)和罪犯血管血运重建(CV-PCI)]治疗合并MVD的ACS患者的围手术期安全性,如平均住院日、梗死血管开通时间、造影剂用量、平均造影时间、血小板糖蛋白IIb/IIIa受体拮抗剂使用率、平均支架数、主动脉内球囊使用率、造影剂肾病发生率、出血事件的发生率等。

结果

共纳入18篇文献,119 674例合并MVD的ACS患者。Meta分析结果显示:与仅处理罪犯血管的部分血运重建CV-PCI治疗相比,MV-PCI术可降低围手术期患者平均住院天数(MD=-4.27,95%CI -5.1~-3.44,P<0.00001),增加患者的支架使用数(MD=0.98,95%CI 0.88~1.09,P<0.00001)、造影剂使用量(MD=72.99,95%CI 33.24~112.73,P=0.0003)以及造影时间(MD=7.27,95%CI 2.2~12.35,P=0.005),但对患者的血管开通时间(MD=-0.64,95%CI -1.69~-0.41,P=0.24)和造影剂肾病发生率(RR=0.99,95%CI 0.51~1.92,P=0.98)、围手术期出血事件(RR=1.11,95%CI 0.84~1.46,P=0.48)和主动脉内球囊使用(RR=1.02,95%CI 0.83~1.24,P=0.88)并无影响。

结论

完全血运重建术可以降低多支血管病变ACS患者平均住院日,虽然增加患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术中造影剂用量、造影时间和平均支架数,但并不增加造影剂肾病的发病率、围手术期出血事件及心源性休克的发生率。

Objective

To evaluate the perioperative safety of complete revascularization (MV-PCI) and partial revascularization (CV-PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials of different revascularization methods to prevent acute coronary syndrome were searched in databases including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Collaboration, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP database. High-quality articles that met the requirements and the relevant data from the articles obtained were then screened and analyzed. RevMan5.3 software was used to evaluate the efficacy of different revascularization methods for the treatment of coronary multivessel disease with regard to average hospitalization days, time to opening of infarct-related vessel, contrast agent dosage, average contrast time, platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist use, mean stent number, and intra-aortic balloon pump use.

Results

A total of 18 articles were included, involving 119 674 patients with MV-ACS. Meta-analysis showed that compared with CV-PCI, MV-PCI significantly reduced perioperative mean hospital stay (MD=-4.27, 95%CI: -5.1~-3.44, P<0.00001), and increased the number of stents used by patients (MD=0.98, 95%CI: 0.88~1.09, P<0.00001), contrast agent usage (MD=72.99, 95%CI: 33.24~112.73, P=0.0003), and contrast time (MD=7.27, 95%CI: 2.2~12.35, P=0.005), but vascular access time (MD=-0.64, 95%CI: -1.69~-0.41, P=0.24), the incidence of radiographic contrast nephropathy (relative risk [RR]=0.99, 95%CI: 0.51~1.92, P=0.98), perioperative bleeding events (RR=1.11, 95%CI: 0.84~1.46, P=0.48), and intra-aortic balloon pump use rate (RR=1.02, 95%CI: 0.83~1.24, P=0.88) had no significant change.

Conclusion

MV-PCI can reduce perioperative vascular access time and mean hospitalization days in patients with MV-ACS, although the amount of contrast agent, contrast time, and average number of stents are increased, while the incidence of radiographic contrast nephropathy, perioperative bleeding events, and cardiogenic shock does not increase.

图1 不同策略血运重建术对合并MVD的ACS患者血管开通时间的影响
图2 不同策略血运重建术对合并MVD的ACS患者平均住院天数的影响
图3 不同策略血运重建术对合并MVD的ACS患者造影剂用量的影响
图4 不同策略血运重建术对合并MVD的ACS患者造影时间的影响
图5 不同策略血运重建术对合并MVD的ACS患者血小板糖蛋白Ⅱb/Ⅲa拮抗剂使用的影响
图6 不同策略血运重建术对合并MVD的ACS患者使用平均支架数量的影响
图7 不同策略学运重建术对合并MVD的ACS患者出血事件的影响
图8 不同策略血运重建术对合并MVD的ACS患者造影剂肾病发生率的影响
图9 不同策略血运重建术对合并MVD的ACS患者使用主动脉内球囊的影响
1
Bainey KR, Mehta SR, Lai T, et al. Complete vs culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Am Heart J, 2014, 167(1): 1-14. e2.
2
Vlaar PJ, Mahmoud KD, Holmes DR, et al. Culprit vessel only versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pairwise and network meta-analysis[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2011, 58(7): 692-703.
3
Abdallah MS, Wang K, Magnuson EA, et al. Quality of life after PCI vs CABG among patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease: a randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA, 2013, 310(15): 1581-1590.
4
Park HW, Yoon CH, Kang SH, et al. Early- and late-term clinical outcome and their predictors in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction[J]. Int J Cardiol, 2013, 169(4): 254-261.
5
Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction[J]. JAMA, 2006, 295(21): 2511-2515.
6
Eong HC, Ahn JH, Kim MC, et al. A score for decision making during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease[J]. Korean J Intern Med, 2019, 34(2): 324-334.
7
Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. One-year outcomes after PCI strategies in cardiogenic shock[J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 379(18): 1699-1710.
8
Yang JH, Hahn JY, Song PS, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for nonculprit vessels in cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction[J]. Crit Care Med, 2014, 42(1): 17-25.
9
Onuma Y, Muramatsu T, Girasis C, et al. Single-vessel or multivessel PCI in patients with multivessel disease presenting with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes[J]. EuroIntervention, 2013, 9(8): 916-922.
10
Mylotte D, Morice MC, Eltchaninoff H, et al. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and cardiogenic shock: the role of primary multivessel revascularization[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2013, 6(2): 115-125.
11
Lee HJ, Song YB, Hahn JY, et al. Multivessel vs single-vessel revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease in the drug-eluting stent era[J]. Clin Cardiol, 2011, 34(3): 160-165.
12
Bauer T, Zeymer U, Hochadel M, et al. Prima-vista multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in haemodynamically stable patients with acute coronary syndromes: analysis of over 4.400 patients in the EHS-PCI registry[J]. Int J Cardiol, 2013, 166(3): 596-600.
13
Kim MC, Jeong MH, Ahn Y, et al. What is optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction? Multivessel or culprit-only revascularization[J]. Int J Cardiol, 2011, 153(2): 148-153.
14
Brener SJ, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, et al. Culprit-only or multivessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Database Registry report[J]. Am Heart J, 2008, 155(1): 140-146.
15
Shishehbor MH, Lauer MS, Singh IM, et al. In unstable angina or non-ST-segment acute coronary syndrome, should patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergo multivessel or culprit-only stenting?[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007, 49(8): 849-854.
16
Hassanin A, Veron G. The complete mitochondrial genome of the Spotted Linsang, Prionodon pardicolor, the first representative from the family Prionodontidae (Mammalia, Carnivora)[J]. Mitochondrial DNA A DNA Mapp Seq Anal, 2016, 27(2): 912-913.
17
王崇振, 王选琦, 黄莉. 不同血运重建策略对老年非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征合并多支血管病变患者预后的影响[J]. 中华老年多器官疾病杂志, 2017, 16(12): 934-938.
18
高瑜. 急性冠状动脉综合征超高龄伴多支血管病变患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗不同策略的疗效对比[J]. 中国心血管病研究, 2018, 16(5): 438-441.
19
李晓宁, 崔连群. 急性心肌梗死合并多支血管病变患者非梗死相关动脉处理的时机[J]. 山东大学学报:医学版, 2016, 54(8): 50-54.
20
陈燕春, 张奇, 张瑞岩, 等. 急性心肌梗死伴多支病变患者完全血运重建安全性及临床疗效[J]. 上海医学, 2008, 31(10): 690-693.
21
张晓锋, 刘艳, 惠玲玲, 等. 急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗同时处理非梗死相关血管的疗效研究[J]. 中国心血管杂志, 2015, 20(3): 20-24.
22
朱家赫, 于彤彤, 孙兆青. 完全血运重建策略对老年急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死合并多支血管病变患者预后的影响[J]. 中国医科大学学报, 2017, 46(3): 227-231.
23
林苗, 赵文涛, 张敏霞, 等. 直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗同期干预非梗死相关动脉对ST段抬高型心肌梗死多支血管病变患者预后的影响[J]. 中国心血管杂志, 2017, 22(6): 423-427.
24
Brilakis ES, Mashayekhi K, Tsuchikane E, et al. Guiding principles for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Circulation, 2019, 140(5): 420-433.
[1] 蚁淳, 袁冬生, 熊学军. 系统免疫炎症指数与骨密度降低和骨质疏松的关联[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 609-617.
[2] 李志文, 李远志, 李华, 方志远. 糖皮质激素治疗膝骨关节炎疗效的网状Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 484-496.
[3] 吴姗姗, 潘裕民, 刘晋, 张劲松, 乔莉. 睡眠呼吸暂停综合征患者静脉血栓栓塞症发生率的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 312-317.
[4] 程鹏, 杨道鸿, 邓文君, 钟宇琼, 胡晓雪, 黄小银, 周道扬. 纤维蛋白原治疗创伤性凝血病有效性和安全性的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(03): 225-231.
[5] 沈皓, 张驰, 韩旻轩, 陆晓庆, 周愉, 周莉丽. 骨皮质切开术对正畸治疗牙根吸收影响的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 175-184.
[6] 郭仁凯, 武慧铭, 李辉宇. 机器人辅助全系膜切除术治疗右半结肠癌有效性和安全性的Meta分析及试验序贯分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 234-240.
[7] 朱俊佳, 孙琦, 徐文龙, 陆天宇, 冯强, 储涛, 邢春根, 高春冬, 俞一峰, 赵振国. 永久性结肠造口预防性补片置入对预防造口旁疝价值的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 336-342.
[8] 王招荐, 曹桢, 郭小双, 靳小雷, 刘子文. 加速康复外科理念应用于腹壁重建手术的系统评价及Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 343-350.
[9] 马振威, 宋润夫, 王兵. ERCP胆道内支架与骑跨十二指肠乳头支架置入治疗不可切除肝门部胆管癌疗效的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 807-812.
[10] 龚财芳, 赵俊宇, 游川. 围手术期肠内营养在肝癌肝切除患者中有效性及安全性的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(04): 551-556.
[11] 郁凯, 曾保起, 杨剑, 杨杰, 张殿英, 孙凤. 全关节镜与切开手术治疗肩袖撕裂疗效比较的系统综述与Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2024, 12(03): 238-245.
[12] 王芳, 刘达, 左智炜, 盛金平, 陈庭进, 蒋锐. 定量CT与双能X线骨密度仪对骨质疏松诊断效能比较的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 363-371.
[13] 周倩妹, 王宪娥, 徐筱, 老慧琳, 赵欣悦, 胡菁颖. 多元化系统护理对老年人群牙周健康指标影响的系统评价[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 500-506.
[14] 牟超鹏, 宗斌, 刘奕, 史美英, 徐杜娟, 冯春光. 经远端桡动脉与经常规桡动脉行急诊冠脉介入诊疗后穿刺部位血肿的对比[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 275-282.
[15] 周洪千, 张煜坤, 顾天舒, 胡苏涛, 姜超, 张雪, 张昊, 陶华岳, 刘行, 刘彤, 陈康寅. 既往出血性脑卒中患者行经皮冠脉介入治疗后不良事件的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 323-329.
阅读次数
全文


摘要