CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

左主干支架

科研文章

荐读文献

Left Main Stenting: What We Have Learnt So Far? 2-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy The Current State of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Impact of different final optimization techniques on long-term clinical outcomes of left main cross-over stenting Bypass Surgery or Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Novel developments in revascularization for left main coronary artery disease Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting According to Lesion Site Results From the EXCEL Trial Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease Design and rationale for a randomised comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease: the EXCEL trial Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial

Original Research2018 Nov 15;271:42-48.

JOURNAL:Int J Cardiol. Article Link

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

Cerrato E, Echavarria-Pinto M, D'Ascenzo F et al. Keywords: Fractional flow reserve; Intravascular ultrasound imaging; Left main intermediate stenosis

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Current guidelines recommend intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) to decide upon ambiguous left main (LM) disease. However, no study has compared the safety of LM revascularization deferral based on FFR or IVUS.


METHODS - MEDLINE/PubMed was systematically screened for studies reporting on deferred treatment of angiographically ambiguous LM based upon FFR or IVUS evaluation. Baseline, angiographic and outcome data were appraised and pooled separately for each strategy according to random-effect models with inverse-variance weighting.


RESULTS - A total of 908 LM stenoses from 7 FFR and 5 IVUS studies were included with median follow-up of 29.0 and 31.5 months respectively. Per year of follow-up occurrence of overall MACE were 5.1% in FFR group and 6.4% in IVUS group while death, myocardial infarction, LM revascularization were respectively 2.6%, 1.5% and 1.8% vs. 3.0%, 0.5% and 2.2%. Meta-regression analysis suggested the influence of a distal LM stenosis on MACE in FFR group (β = 0.06, p = 0.01) and age in IVUS group (β = 0.4, p = 0.001). In individual studies several independent predictors of MACE were identified including use of lower doses of intracoronary adenosine (OR 1.39, p = 0.04) in FFR group and plaque burden (OR 1.34, p = 0.025), number of other diseased vessels (OR 1.39, p = 0.04) and any untreated stenosis (OR 3.80; p = 0.037) in IVUS- studies.


CONCLUSIONS - Deferring LM intermediate stenosis on the basis of FFR or IVUS showed an acceptable and similar risk of events in a mid-term follow-up. Conversely, several different variables related to each technique showed an interaction on outcome.


Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.