CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Complex PCI procedures: challenges for the interventional cardiologist Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention 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 Expansion or contraction of stenting in coronary artery disease? Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Revascularization in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction EXCELling in Left Main Intervention

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.