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? 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 Optimizing outcomes during left main percutaneous coronary intervention with intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve: the current state of evidence 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
|<<... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>|

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. 
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top