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 Intravascular Ultrasound to Guide Left Main Stem Intervention: A Sub-Study of the NOBLE Trial Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: an individual patient data meta-analysis Long-Term Outcomes After PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease According to Lesion Location 10-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Left main coronary artery disease: importance, diagnosis, assessment, and management Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Optimal Stent Strategy in Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Comparative effectiveness analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with chronic kidney disease and unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Clinical Trial2012 Oct 2;60(14):1217-22.

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents or first-generation Paclitaxel-eluting stents for unprotected left main disease

Valenti R, Migliorini A, Parodi G et al. Keywords: drug-eluting stent(s); everolimus-eluting stent(s); paclitaxel-eluting stent(s)

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with outcomes of patients treated with first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for unprotected left main disease (ULMD).


BACKGROUND - No data exist about the comparison of these 2 types of stents in ULMD.

METHODS - The primary endpoint of the study was a 1-year composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke (MACE). Secondary endpoints were 1-year target vessel failure (TVF) and 9-month angiographic in-segment restenosis >50%.

RESULTS - From 2004 to 2010, a total of 390 patients underwent ULMD percutaneous coronary intervention (224 received PES and 166 EES). The 1-year MACE rate was 21.9% in the PES group and 10.2% in the EES group (p = 0.002). TVF rate was 20.5% in the PES group and 7.8% in the EES group (p < 0.001). The in-segment restenosis rate was 5.2% in the EES group and 15.6% in the PES group (p = 0.002). EES and EuroSCORE were the only variables related to the risk of MACE. EES (odds ratio: 0.32; p = 0.007) was also independently related to the risk of restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS - EES implantation for ULMD is associated with a reduced incidence of 1-year MACE, TVF, and restenosis as compared with PES implantation.

Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.