CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Randomized Evaluation of TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: REFLECT II Contemporary Presentation and Management of Valvular Heart Disease: The EURObservational Research Programme Valvular Heart Disease II Survey Comparison of Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Native Coronary Arteries Versus on Saphenous Venous Aorta Coronary Conduits in Patients With Low Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Impella Device Implantation Achieved or Attempted (from the PROTECT II Randomized Trial and the cVAD Registry) 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Conduction Disturbances in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee 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 Impact of Staging Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Left Main Artery Disease: Insights From the EXCEL Trial 5-Year Outcomes Comparing Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease MINOCA: a heterogenous group of conditions associated with myocardial damage Evolution of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a 40-year journey 5-Year Outcomes After TAVR With Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves: Results From the CHOICE Randomized Clinical Trial
|<<... 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2015 May 26;65(20):2198-206.

JOURNAL：J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Randomized Trial of Stents Versus Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: 5-Year Outcomes of the PRECOMBAT Study

Ahn JM, Roh JH, Park SJ et al. Keywords: coronary artery bypass grafting; long-term outcome; percutaneous coronary intervention

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - In a previous randomized trial, we found that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not inferior to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis at 1 year.


OBJECTIVES - This study sought to determine the 5-year outcomes of PCI compared with CABG for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.

METHODS - We randomly assigned 600 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis to undergo PCI with a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 300) or CABG (n = 300). The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE: a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) and compared on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS - At 5 years, MACCE occurred in 52 patients in the PCI group and 42 patients in the CABG group (cumulative event rates of 17.5% and 14.3%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84 to 1.90; p = 0.26). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke as well as their composite (8.4% and 9.6%; HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.52; p = 0.66). Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization occurred more frequently in the PCI group than in the CABG group (11.4% and 5.5%, respectively; HR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.84; p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS - During 5 years of follow-up, our study did not show significant difference regarding the rate of MACCE between patients who underwent PCI with a sirolimus-eluting stent and those who underwent CABG. However, considering the limited power of our study, our results should be interpreted with caution. (Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease [PRECOMBAT]; NCT00422968).

Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
>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