摘要目的:探讨经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）和冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗（CABG）两种不同血运重建策略对合并射血分数降低心力衰竭（HFrEF）的冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病（冠心病）患者近期及远期预后的影响。方法:选取2005年1月1日至2014年12月31日就诊于首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院的合并HFrEF并成功行血运重建治疗的冠心病患者进行回顾性队列研究， 对两组接受不同血运重建策略的患者术前基线资料以及术后随访3个月、1年和3年的心功能变化情况、主要不良心血管事件（MACCE）的发生情况进行对比。结果:根据纳入及排除标准最终入选患者1 813例，年龄（59.6±10.0）岁，其中男1 507例（83.1%）、女306例（16.9%）。入选病例中接受PCI治疗置入药物洗脱支架687例，接受CABG治疗1 126例。比较血运重建术前临床及造影基线资料，两组患者具有相似的左室射血分数（LVEF）值［（35.8±5.1）%比（35.9±4.6）%， P>0.05］，但CABG组左室舒张末期内径（LVEDD）大于PCI组［（59.8±7.2）比（57.9±7.7） mm， P<0.001］时具有更高的冠状动脉病变SYNTAX评分（27.3±10.2比31.1±10.4， P<0.01）。成功行血运重建术后3个月、1年或3年，两组患者LVEF的变化值差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。Cox回归分析结果表明，术后3年CABG组与PCI组的全因死亡及心源性死亡风险差异无统计学意义（16.3%比4.3%， HR=1.5， 95% CI：1.2~2.1， P=0.07； 8.5%比8.2%， HR=1.3，95% CI：1.1~1.4， P=0.20），但CABG组具有更高的脑卒中风险（6.2%比2.9%， HR=2.9， 95% CI：2.3~3.6， P<0.01）和较低的再次血运重建发生率（6.5%比15.1%， HR=0.5， 95% CI：0.3~0.7， P<0.01）。对于SYNTAX评分≥33分的患者，CABG组全因死亡或心源性死亡风险略低于PCI组，差异无统计学意义（ HR=0.8， 95% CI：0.4~1.3， P=0.06； HR=0.7， 95% CI：0.4~1.0， P=0.90）。 结论:合并HFrEF的冠心病患者接受PCI治疗的远期预后并不劣于接受CABG治疗；对于存在左心功能障碍的冠心病患者，PCI也可作为血运重建治疗策略。

abstractsObjectives:To explore the short and long term outcomes of coronary artery disease(CAD) patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after two different revascularization strategies.Methods:The CAD patients with HFrEF who had undegone successful revascularization from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014 in Anzhen Hospital were analyzed based on registries. The baseline characteristics, changes of left heart function and the MACCE after a mean follow-up of 3.1 years were compared.Results:A total of 1 813 CAD patients with HFrEF who had undergone successful PCI (n=687) or CABG (n=1 126) satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. The age of all patients included was (59.6±10.0) years and male patients accounted for 83.1%. For the coronary angiographic features, the CABG group showed higher SYNTAX score (27.3±10.2 vs 31.1±10.4, P<0.01) and greater left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) [(59.8±7.2) vs (57.9±7.7)mm, P<0.001]. The LVEF before revascularization was similar in PCI and CABG group [(35.8±5.1)% vs (35.9±4.6)%, P>0.05]. At three-month, one-year or three-year follow-up after revascularization, the improvement of LVEF was similar in the two groups ( P>0.05). After multivariable adjustment, three-year outcomes revealed that the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiac death were not statistically significant between CABG and PCI group (16.3% vs 14.3%, HR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.2-2.1, P=0.07; 8.5% vs 8.2%, HR=1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.4, P=0.20). With regards to other endpoints, CABG group had a higher rate of stroke (6.2% vs 2.9%, HR=2.9, 95% CI:2.3-3.6, P<0.01) but a lower rate of repeat revascularization (6.5% vs 15.1%, HR=0.5, 95% CI:0.3-0.7, P<0.01) compared to PCI group. And for patients with SYNTAX score≥33, PCI group showed a comparable risk of all-cause mortality or cardiac death ( HR=0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.3, P=0.06; HR=0.7, 95% CI:0.4-1.0, P=0.90). Conclusions:In CAD patients with HFrEF who had undergone successful revascularization, PCI is not inferior to CABG for long-term survival. PCI should be taken into consideration to become an alternative strategy in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.