CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Operator Experience and Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Differential prognostic impact of treatment strategy among patients with left main versus non-left main bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) Registry II Long-term results after PCI of unprotected distal left main coronary artery stenosis: the Bifurcations Bad Krozingen (BBK)-Left Main Registry Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization
|<<... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2017 Oct 4.[Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL：Int J Cardiol. Article Link

Provisional versus elective two-stent strategy for unprotected true left main bifurcation lesions: Insights from a FAILS-2 sub-study

Kawamoto H, Chieffo A, Colombo A et al. Keywords: Drug-eluting stent; Percutaneous coronary intervention; True bifurcation lesions; Unprotected left main coronary artery

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - This study sought to investigate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for true unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) bifurcations.

METHODS - The FAILS-2 was a retrospective multi-center study including patients with ULMCA disease treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents. Of these, we compared clinical outcomes of a provisional strategy (PS; n=216) versus an elective two-stent strategy (E2S; n=161) for true ULMCA bifurcations. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 3-years. We further performed propensity-score adjustment for clinical outcomes.


RESULTS - There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of patient and lesion characteristics. 9.7% of patients in the PS group crossed over to a provisional two-stent strategy. MACEs were not significantly different between groups (MACE at 3-year; PS 28.1% vs. E2S 28.9%, adjusted p=0.99). The rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) on the circumflex artery (LCX) were numerically high in the E2S group (LCX-TLR at 3-years; PS 11.8% vs. E2S 16.6%, adjusted p=0.51).


CONCLUSIONS - E2S was associated with a comparable MACE rate to PS for true ULMCA bifurcations. The rates of LCX-TLR tended to be higher in the E2S group although there was no statistical significance.


CONDENSED ABSTRACT - This study sought to compare the clinical outcomes of a provisional strategy (PS) with an elective two-stent strategy (E2S) for the treatment of true unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcations. 377 Patients (PS 216 vs. E2S 161 patients) were evaluated, and 9.7% in the PS group crossed over to a two-stent strategy. E2S was associated with a similar major adverse cardiac event rate at 3-years when compared to the PS strategy (PS 28.1% vs. E2S 28.9%, p=0.99). However, the left circumflex artery TLR rate at 3-year tended to be higher in the E2S group (PS 11.8% vs. E2S 16.6%, p=0.51).

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top