CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Intravascular Ultrasound to Guide Left Main Stem Intervention: A Sub-Study of the NOBLE Trial Sex differences in left main coronary artery stenting: Different characteristics but similar outcomes for women compared with men Quality of Life after Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Treatment of Left Main Disease Impact of Lesion Preparation Strategies on Outcomes of Left Main PCI: The EXCEL Trial Current treatment of significant left main coronary artery disease: A review Long-term outcomes following mini-crush versus culotte stenting for the treatment of unprotected left main disease: insights from the Milan and New-Tokyo (MITO) registry Provisional versus elective two-stent strategy for unprotected true left main bifurcation lesions: Insights from a FAILS-2 sub-study Second vs. First generation drug eluting stents in multiple vessel disease and left main stenosis: Two-year follow-up of the observational, prospective, controlled, and multicenter ERACI IV registry

Original Research2013 Aug 22;9(4):452-62.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

Two-year outcomes of everolimus vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent for the treatment of unprotected left main lesions: a propensity score matching comparison of patients included in the French Left Main Taxus (FLM Taxus) and the LEft MAin Xience (LEMAX) registries

Moynagh A, Salvatella N, Harb T et al. Keywords: stenting; coronary artery disease; outcomes; unprotected left main

ABSTRACT


AIMS - With newer drug-eluting stents (DES), PCI has appeared as an acceptable alternative to cardiac surgery in the treatment of unprotected left main (ULM) lesions. Using data from the French Left Main Taxus and the LEft MAin Xience registries, we compared two-year outcomes in consecutive patients from 2003-2008 using everolimus-eluting stents (EES) vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).


METHODS AND RESULTS - We performed a matched comparison according to SYNTAX score, distal LM stenosis, provisional side-branch T-stenting and single stent use, focusing on the primary endpoints of target vessel MI (TVMI) and target vessel failure (TVF). After propensity score matching, there were 172 patients in each group. There was no difference in gender (76.5% male), age (69.5 ± 11.3 years), diabetes (26.2% vs. 24.4%, p=0.71), NSTEMI (40.7% vs. 40.7%, p=1), or LVEF <40% (11.0% vs. 6.7%, p=0.22). Patients with distal LM lesions (75.9%) were treated using provisional T-stenting in 91.1%. The side branch was stented in 22% of all patients (p=0.51). Cumulative two-year events showed significant differences in TVMI (9.9% vs. 4.1%, p=0.04) and TVF (16.3% vs. 7.6%, p=0.01) for PES and EES, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS - ULM stenting with EES is safer and more effective than PES with a reduction in TLF by 53% at two years.