The coronary artery disease is a frequent severe disease of cardiovascular system in recent years. Meanwhile, lung cancer, with its high morbidity and mortality, is the most frequent malignant tumor of respiratory system in the world. Clinical studies have shown that the incidence of coronary artery disease and lung cancer is high throughout the year, and comorbidities are becoming more common, especially in elderly patients. The incidence of lung cancer and coronary heart disease may be related. This article summarizes the common risk factors (smoking and environmental pollution, fibrinogen, estrogen, and age), and treatment (surgical treatment, neoadjuvant therapy, and targeted therapy) progress of the two diseases, providing a theoretical basis for clinical prevention and treatment.
Objective To compare postoperative survival rates and the incidence of adverse events in patients with three-vessel disease undergoing complete versus incomplete revascularization during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on patient data from Tianjin Chest Hospital who underwent primary isolated CABG surgery between 2019 and 2020. Patients were divided into a complete revascularization group and an incomplete revascularization group based on the revascularization status after surgery. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used for risk adjustment. Results A total of 1 419 patients were included in the study, with 1 086 (76.5%) undergoing complete revascularization. IPTW analysis showed that complete revascularization could reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) [HR=0.596, 95%CI (0.404, 0.880), P=0.010] and angina [HR=0.560, 95%CI (0.377, 0.823), P=0.004]. Conclusion In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization may be associated with improved patient outcomes.
Objective To compare the clinical effects of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) via the left anterior small thoracotomy (LAST) versus lower-end sternal splitting (LESS) approach in the treatment of coronary heart disease. Methods The patients who underwent LAST CABG in Tianjin Chest Hospital from October 2015 to December 2020 were allocated to an observation group (LAST group), and the patients who underwent LESS CABG at the same period were allocated to a LESS group. Propensity score matching method was applied with a ratio of 1∶1. The baseline data, perioperative data and grafts data were compared between the two groups after matching. Results Before matching, there were 110 patients in the LAST group, and 206 patients in the LESS group. After matching, there were 110 patients in each group. In the LAST group, there were 83 males and 27 females with an average age of 60.6±8.3 years. In the LESS group, there were 80 males and 30 females with an average age of 61.0±9.6 years. There was no statistical difference in baseline data between the two groups after matching (P>0.05). The hospital stay time (t=2.255, P=0.025) and ventilator using time (t=−2.229, P=0.027) in the LAST group were significantly shorter than those in the LESS group. There were no statistical differences between the two groups in the postoperative hospital stay time, ICU stay time, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, postoperative left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, average number of grafts, secondary intubation, secondary thoracotomy, postoperative wound infection, sternal complications, postoperative atrial fibrillation, postoperative pulmonary infection or main adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (P>0.05). There was no statistical difference in the distribution of target vessels in the anterior descending branch, diagonal branch or posterior descending branch between the two groups (P>0.05). The grafts of the LAST group were significantly more than those of the LESS group in the area of obtuse marginal branch and posterior ventricular branch, and the grafts of the LESS group were significantly more than those of the LAST group in the area of right coronary artery (P<0.05). Postoperative computerized tomography angiography indicated that 1 patient in the LAST group had obtuse marginal branch vein bridge vessel occlusion, and the bridge vessels in the other patients were unobstructed. Conclusion Minimally invasive CABG via both LAST and LESS approaches is safe and effective. LAST approach can achieve complete revascularization for multi-vessel lesions, and it is safe and reliable, with the advantages of less trauma and aesthetic appearance. However, it requires a certain learning curve of surgical techniques and certain surgical indications.