CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

左主干支架

科研文章

荐读文献

Left-main restenosis in the DES era-a call for action Current Interventions for the Left Main Bifurcation One or two stents for the distal Left Main bifurcation The DK crush V study - The DK crush V study Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting for Left Main Distal Bifurcation Lesions: DKCRUSH-V Randomized Trial Comparison of double kissing crush versus Culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study Design and rationale for the treatment effects of provisional side branch stenting and DK crush stenting techniques in patients with unprotected distal left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions (DKCRUSH V) Trial Left Main Revascularization in 2017 Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Stent fracture is associated with a higher mortality in patients with type-2 diabetes treated by implantation of a second-generation drug-eluting stent Usefulness of the SYNTAX score II to validate 2-year outcomes in patients with complex coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A large single-center study Contemporary Approach to Coronary Bifurcation Lesion Treatment

Editorial2019 Oct 12;394(10206):1299-1300.

JOURNAL:Lancet. Article Link

Expansion or contraction of stenting in coronary artery disease?

Taggart DP, Pagano D. Keywords: PCI vs CABG; left main

ABSTRACT


In the past four decades, more than 20 trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have tested whether iterative technical advances in PCI have made it as effective as CABG in patients with stable coronary artery disease. The clinical relevance of most of these trials to real-world practice has, however, been plagued by three issues.


First, by largely enrolling highly selected patients with low-severity coronary artery disease, the trials were inherently biased towards more favourable outcomes for PCI. Second, by limiting follow-up to a few years, the trials hid the accelerating divergence in survival benefit of CABG. Third, even in relatively contemporary trials, surgical patients received substantially inferior medical therapy, thereby mitigating the overall benefits of CABG.