CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Stenting Left Main

Abstract

Recommended Article

Expansion or contraction of stenting in coronary artery disease? New-onset atrial fibrillation after PCI and CABG for left main disease: insights from the EXCEL trial and additional studies Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Radial versus femoral artery access in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease: analysis from the EXCEL trial 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 Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Distal Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

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.