CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Stenting Left Main

Abstract

Recommended Article

Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents or first-generation Paclitaxel-eluting stents for unprotected left main disease Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: comparison with bare metal stent implantation 10-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Left Main Revascularization in 2017: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? EXCELling in Left Main Intervention Left main coronary artery disease: importance, diagnosis, assessment, and management Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Optimal Stent Strategy in Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Left main coronary angioplasty: early and late results of 127 acute and elective procedures

Original Research2017 Apr 1;119(7):978-982.

JOURNAL:Am J Cardiol. Article Link

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)

D'Ascenzo F, Chieffo A, Cerrato E et al. Keywords: Incidence; Restenosis; unprotected left main; second-generation drug-eluting stents

ABSTRACT


Incidence, predictors, and impact on prognosis of target lesion revascularization (TLR) for patients treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) on unprotected left main (ULM) remain to be defined. The present study is a multicenter study including patients treated with a second-generation DES on ULM from June 2007 to January 2015. Rate of TLR was the primary end point. All cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis were the secondary end points. A total of 1,270 patients were enrolled: after a follow-up of 650 days (230 to 1,170), 47 (3.7%) of them underwent a re-percutaneous coronary intervention TLR on the left main, 22 during a planned angiographic follow-up. Extent of coronary artery disease was similar among groups (median value of Syntax of 27 ± 10 vs 26 ± 9, p = 0.45), as localization of the lesion in the ULM. Of patients reporting with TLR on ULM, 56% presented with a focal restenosis, 33% diffuse and 10% proliferative. At multivariate analysis, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus increased risk of TLR (hazard ratio [HR] 2.0: 1.1 to 3.6, p = 0.04), whereas use of intravascular ultrasound resulted protective (HR 0.5: 0.3 to 0.9, p = 0.02). At follow-up, rates of cardiovascular death did not differ among the 2 groups (4% vs 4%, p = 0.95). At multivariate analysis, TLR on LM did not increase risk of all cause death (HR 0.4: 0.1 to 1.6, p = 0.22), whereas cardiogenic shock and III tertile of Syntax portended a worse prognosis (HR 4.5: 2.1 to 10.2, p = 0.01 and HR 1.4: 1.1 to 1.6, p = 0.03, respectively). In conclusion, repeated revascularization after implantation of second-generation DES on ULM represents an unfrequent event, being increased in insulin-dependent patients and reduced by intravascular ultrasound. Impact on prognosis remains neutral, being related to clinical presentation and extent of coronary artery disease.