CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

左主干支架

科研文章

荐读文献

Bayesian Interpretation of the EXCEL Trial and Other Randomized Clinical Trials of Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization EXCELling in Left Main Intervention Incidence and Management of Restenosis After Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Disease With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents (from Failure in Left Main Study With 2nd Generation Stents-Cardiogroup III Study) Revascularization of left main coronary artery Clinical Outcome After DK Crush Versus Culotte Stenting of Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: The 3-Year Follow-Up Results of the DKCRUSH-III Study Left Main Revascularization in 2017: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Optimizing outcomes during left main percutaneous coronary intervention with intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve: the current state of evidence Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Left Main Disease: Pre- and Post-EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Everolimus Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) and NOBLE (Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularization Study) Era Safety of intermediate left main stenosis revascularization deferral based on fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-regression including 908 deferred left main stenosis from 12 studies Percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery disease: the 13th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club

Clinical Trial2018 Jul 26. [Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL:Clin Res Cardiol. Article Link

Long-term results after PCI of unprotected distal left main coronary artery stenosis: the Bifurcations Bad Krozingen (BBK)-Left Main Registry

Ferenc M, Banholzer N, Hochholzer W et al. Keywords: Bifurcation; Distal left main stenosis; Drug-eluting stents; Reintervention; Restenosis; TAP stenting

ABSTRACT


AIMS - Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected distal left main stenosis (UDLM) is increasingly performed as an alternative to surgical treatment. The optimal strategy for stenting in this setting is still a matter of debate. Therefore, this analysis investigated the long-term clinical outcome of a single- versus a double-stenting strategy for treatment of UDLM.


METHODS AND RESULTS - From a large registry, 867 consecutive patients with UDLM undergoing either single or double stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) were identified. Follow-up was up to 10 (median 3.1, interquartile range 1.1-5.3) years. Primary endpoint was MACE consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion re-intervention (TLR). Secondary clinical endpoints included these single endpoints and stent thrombosis. MACE occurred in 41.5% after single and in 49.0% after double stenting (P = 0.03). TLR was lower after single (17.4%) as compared to double stenting (27.2%; P < 0.01). Between single and double stenting, there were no significant differences for death (26.4 versus 23.3%; P = 0.31), death or myocardial infarction (29.1 versus 27.2%; P = 0.55), or definite/probable stent thrombosis (1.3 versus 2.1%; P = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS - Compared with single stenting, double stenting was associated with a significantly higher long-term risk of MACE. This was driven by a higher incidence of TLR, whereas the risk of death, MI, or stent thrombosis was similar between the two strategies.