抄録
Background: Although revascularization via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been widely performed, there are limited data on which procedure is best in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Methods and Results: This 10-year follow-up study consisted of 997 HD patients electively undergoing coronary revascularization (CABG, n=210; PCI, n=787). With an adjustment for propensity scores with all baseline covariates, the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was evaluated as a composite endpoint including all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and any revascularization. During the follow-up period, 465 MACE (death, n=325; non-fatal MI, n=45; revascularization, n=274) occurred. The 10-year freedom from MACE was higher in the CABG group compared to the PCI group (51.0% vs. 34.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49–0.82, P=0.0003). On landmark analysis, adjusted HR of death was higher during the first 6 months after CABG compared to PCI (1.72; 95% CI: 1.04–2.79, P=0.036), but lower from 6 months onward (0.69; 95% CI: 0.48–0.97, P=0.033). When compared to patients treated with drug-eluting stent alone (n=345) in the PCI group, the CABG group still had an advantage for any revascularization (adjusted HR, 0.38; 95% CI: 0.22–0.62, P<0.0001), but not for MACE (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI: 0.64–1.15, P=0.33). Conclusions: CABG was totally clinically advantageous compared to PCI in HD patients.
