4.4 Article

Usefulness of revascularization of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease before elective vascular surgery for abdominal aortic and peripheral occlusive disease

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 102, 期 7, 页码 809-813

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.05.022

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, Washington, District of Columbia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Coronary Artery Revascularization Prophylaxis (CARP) study showed no survival benefit with preoperative coronary artery revascularization before elective vascular surgery. The generalizability of the trial results to all patients with multivessel. coronary artery disease (CAD) has been questioned. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of prophylactic coronary revascularization on long-term survival in patients with multivessel CAD. Over a 4-year period, 1,048 patients underwent coronary angiography before vascular surgery during screening into the CARP trial. The cohort was composed of registry (n = 586) and randomized (n = 462) patients, and their survival was determined at 2.5 years after vascular surgery. High-risk coronary anatomy without previous bypass surgery included 2-vessel disease (n = 204 [19.5%]), 3-vessel disease (n = 130 [12.4%]), and left main coronary artery stenosis >= 50% (n = 48 [4.6%]). By log-rank test, preoperative revascularization was associated with improved survival in patients with a left main coronary artery stenoses (0.84 vs 0.52, p <0.01) but not those with either 2-vessel (0.80 vs 0.79, p = 0.83) or 3-vessel (0.79 vs 0.71, p = 0.15) disease. In conclusion, unprotected left main coronary artery disease was present in 4.6% of patients who underwent coronary angiography before vascular surgery, and this was the only subset of patients showing a benefit with preoperative coronary artery revascularization. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据