CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of DAPT disruption due to non-compliance vs. bleeding after PCI: insights from the PARIS Registry Refractory Angina: From Pathophysiology to New Therapeutic Nonpharmacological Technologies Effect of Empagliflozin on Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure by Baseline Diabetes Status - Results from the EMPEROR-Reduced Trial Prevalence, Presentation and Treatment of 'Balloon Undilatable' Chronic Total Occlusions: Insights from a Multicenter US Registry Shock Team Approach in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Proof of Concept Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents 2-Year Clinical Outcomes: From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials Vericiguat in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction State of the Art in Noninvasive Imaging of Ischemic Heart Disease and Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Women: Indications, Performance, and Limitations SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019 Major infections after bypass surgery and stenting for multivessel coronary disease in the randomised SYNTAX trial
|<<... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2010 Mar 16;121(10):1235-43.

JOURNAL：Circulation. Article Link

Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies

Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N et al. Keywords: Simple Versus Complex Drug-Eluting Stenting; Bifurcation Lesions

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques.


METHODS AND RESULTS - Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64+/-10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations (>50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simple group (n=250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n=250), 89% of culotte (n=75) and 72% of crush (n=169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P=0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P=0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P=0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach.

CONCLUSIONS - When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases. Clinical Trial Registration Information- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00351260.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top