CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Impact of Staging Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Left Main Artery Disease: Insights From the EXCEL Trial EXCELling in Left Main Intervention Differences between the left main and other bifurcations New-onset atrial fibrillation after PCI and CABG for left main disease: insights from the EXCEL trial and additional studies Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents or first-generation Paclitaxel-eluting stents for unprotected left main disease

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.