-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
PCI vs. CABG u pacientů se závažnou ischemickou chorobou srdeční: studie SYNTAX
[Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease]
Patrick W. Serruys, et al.
Jazyk čeština Země Česko
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, multicentrická studie
- MeSH
- balónková koronární angioplastika škodlivé účinky MeSH
- cévní mozková příhoda mortalita MeSH
- financování organizované MeSH
- infarkt myokardu mortalita MeSH
- Kaplanův-Meierův odhad MeSH
- kardiovaskulární nemoci epidemiologie MeSH
- koronární bypass škodlivé účinky MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nemoci koronárních tepen MeSH
- opakovaná terapie statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- stenty uvolňující léky MeSH
- stupeň závažnosti nemoci MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- multicentrická studie MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both). METHODS: We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point--a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry. RESULTS: Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease
Komentář [k článku PCI vs. CABG u pacientů se závažnou ischemickou chorobou srdeční: studie SYNTAX].
- 000
- 00000naa 2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc09002319
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20190607101008.0
- 008
- 091105s2009 xr e cze||
- 009
- AR
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a cze $b eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Serruys, P. W., $d 1947- $7 xx0236888
- 245 10
- $a PCI vs. CABG u pacientů se závažnou ischemickou chorobou srdeční: studie SYNTAX / $c Patrick W. Serruys, et al.
- 246 11
- $a Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease
- 314 __
- $a Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam p.w.j.c.serruys@erasmusmc.nl
- 520 9_
- $a Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both). METHODS: We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point--a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry. RESULTS: Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
- 650 _2
- $a financování organizované $7 D005381
- 650 _2
- $a randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma $7 D016032
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a balónková koronární angioplastika $x škodlivé účinky $7 D015906
- 650 _2
- $a kardiovaskulární nemoci $x epidemiologie $7 D002318
- 650 _2
- $a koronární bypass $x škodlivé účinky $7 D001026
- 650 _2
- $a nemoci koronárních tepen $7 D003324
- 650 _2
- $a stenty uvolňující léky $7 D054855
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a Kaplanův-Meierův odhad $7 D053208
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a infarkt myokardu $x mortalita $7 D009203
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a opakovaná terapie $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D019233
- 650 _2
- $a stupeň závažnosti nemoci $7 D012720
- 650 _2
- $a cévní mozková příhoda $x mortalita $7 D020521
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
- 773 0_
- $w MED00012706 $t Clinical cardiology alert $g Roč. 3, č. 3 (2009), s. 26 $x 1213-2586
- 787 18
- $w bmc09002321 $i Recenze v: $t Komentář [k článku PCI vs. CABG u pacientů se závažnou ischemickou chorobou srdeční: studie SYNTAX]
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b B 2242 $c 407 a $y 9 $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20091105082547 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20190607101147 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 691490 $s 553389
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BMC __
- $a 2009 $b 3 $c 3 $d 26 $i 1213-2586 $m Clinical Cardiology Alert $x MED00012706
- LZP __
- $a 2009-34/mkme