非急性心肌缺血综合征的血运重建策略:贝叶斯网络荟萃分析
该研究针对非急性心肌缺血综合征,采用贝叶斯网络荟萃分析比较冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)、经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)联合 optimal medical therapy(OMT)与单纯OMT对长期结局的效果。
要点
- CABG+OMT对比OMT的全因死亡HR为0.84(95% CrI 0.68-1.07),PCI+OMT对比OMT为0.93(0.79-1.16)。
- CABG+OMT在死亡、心肌梗死、卒中和再次血运重建的SUCRA分别为88.1%、99.7%、17.5%和99.5%。
- CABG+OMT在除卒中外的结局上成为最优策略的概率较高,但CrIs重叠提示不确定性。
核心结论
- 初始CABG+OMT血运重建策略相比初始PCI+OMT策略,与更高概率的最优结局相关,但卒中除外。
- 尽管CrIs重叠提示不确定性仍存,CABG+OMT在死亡、心肌梗死和再次血运重建方面成为最优治疗的概率较高。
研究设计与样本
- 采用分层贝叶斯网络荟萃分析(PROSPERO CRD42024541215,注册日期2024年5月20日),纳入2005年至2025年6月10日发表的随机对照试验(RCTs)。
- 纳入的RCTs包含三种初始治疗模式:单纯最佳药物治疗(OMT)、PCI+OMT和CABG+OMT。
主要发现
- 全因死亡(最大随访期):CABG+OMT对比OMT的HR为0.84(95% CrI 0.68-1.07);PCI+OMT对比OMT的HR为0.93(0.79-1.16);CABG+OMT对比PCI+OMT的HR为0.91(0.71-1.13)。
- CABG+OMT策略在死亡、心肌梗死、卒中和再次血运重建方面排名最优的SUCRA分别为88.1%、99.7%、17.5%和99.5%。
- 敏感性分析(包括节点拆分模型)结果一致。
临床怎么用
- 对于非急性心肌缺血综合征患者,初始CABG+OMT策略在长期死亡、心肌梗死和再次血运重建方面可能优于初始PCI+OMT策略,但需个体化评估。
- 卒中风险方面CABG+OMT未显示优势(SUCRA 17.5%),临床决策需权衡不同结局。
局限性
- CrIs存在重叠,提示结果仍存在不确定性。
以上解读依据论文摘要(全文未开放获取或许可不允许翻译转载)。
原文
BACKGROUND: Contemporary guidelines by the European Society for Cardiology and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association for the treatment of non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes dispute the value of revascularisation and differ in their recommendation to perform revascularisation. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, evaluating the strength of evidence for the comparative incremental effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over medical therapy on long-term outcomes. METHODS: A hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis was designed (PROSPERO CRD42024541215, date 20 May 2024), including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2005 and 10 June 2025, which consisted of three initial treatment modalities: optimal medical therapy (OMT), PCI+OMT and CABG+OMT. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at maximum follow-up; secondary outcomes were trates of the rates of myocardial infarction, stroke and re-revascularisation at maximum follow-up, expressed in HRs and 95% credible intervals (CrIs), accompanied by surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores. RESULTS: 10 RCTs, comprising 10 742 patients, were included. For all-cause mortality, the estimated median HR of CABG+OMT versus OMT was 0.84 (95% CrI 0.68-1.07); the HR of PCI+OMT versus OMT was 0.93 (0.79-1.16); and the HR of CABG+OMT versus PCI+OMT was 0.91 (0.71-1.13). The SUCRAs of a CABG+OMT strategy ranking as the optimal revascularisation treatment regarding mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and re-revascularisation were 88.1%, 99.7%, 17.5% and 99.5%, respectively. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses, including in the node-splitting models. CONCLUSIONS: This Bayesian network meta-analysis found that an initial CABG (+OMT) revascularisation strategy was associated with higher probabilities of optimal outcomes, with the exception of stroke, compared with an initial PCI (+OMT) revascularisation strategy, although CrIs overlapped, suggesting that some uncertainty remains. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024541215.
引用
- Kawczynski MJ, Barili F, Brophy JM, et al. Revascularisation strategies for non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes. Heart. 2026. PMID: 40947142. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326101
供执业医师工作参考,不替代临床判断;数值与分级以指南原文为准。