CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Results From the CABANA Trial 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Bleeding in Patients on Oral Anticoagulants: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee Venous and Arterial Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review The Art of SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement in Valve-in-Ring and Valve-in-Mitral-Annular-Calcification Procedures Endoplasmic reticulum stress in doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity may be therapeutically targeted by natural and chemical compounds: A review 2015 ACC/HRS/SCAI Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Device Societal Overview 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension Does pulsed field ablation regress over time? A quantitative temporal analysis of pulmonary vein isolation Functional Mitral Regurgitation Outcome and Grading in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Thirty-Day Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study Results

Clinical Trial2014 Mar;7(3):255-63.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

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

Song YB, Hahn JY, Gwon HC et al. Keywords: angioplasty; bifurcation lesions; drug-eluting stent(s); left main

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The authors sought to investigate whether the impact of treatment strategies on clinical outcomes differed between patients with left main (LM) bifurcation lesions and those with non-LM bifurcation lesions.


BACKGROUND - Few studies have considered anatomic location when comparing 1- and 2-stent strategies for bifurcation lesions.

METHODS - We compared the prognostic impact of treatment strategies on clinical outcomes in 2,044 patients with non-LM bifurcation lesions and 853 with LM bifurcation lesions. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS - The 2-stent strategy was used more frequently in the LM bifurcation group than in the non-LM bifurcation group (40.3% vs. 20.8%, p < 0.01). During a median follow-up of 36 months, the 2-stent strategy was not associated with a higher incidence of cardiac death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 2.14; p = 0.44), cardiac death or MI (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.58 to 2.19; p = 0.73), or TLF (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.94; p = 0.06) in the non-LM bifurcation group. In contrast, in patients with LM bifurcation lesions, the 2-stent strategy was associated with a higher incidence of cardiac death (HR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.05 to 5.59; p = 0.04), cardiac death or MI (HR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.08 to 4.04; p = 0.03), as well as TLF (HR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.60 to 3.55; p < 0.01). Significant interactions were present between treatment strategies and bifurcation lesion locations for TLF (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS - The 1-stent strategy, if possible, should initially be considered the preferred approach for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, especially LM bifurcation lesions. (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting [COBIS] Registry II; NCT01642992).

Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.