CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries as compared with myocardial infarction and obstructive coronary disease: outcomes in a Medicare population Prevalence of anginal symptoms and myocardial ischemia and their effect on clinical outcomes in outpatients with stable coronary artery disease: data from the International Observational CLARIFY Registry 4-Step Protocol for Disparities in STEMI Care and Outcomes in Women Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing: What Is its Value? Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Chronic total occlusion intervention of the non-infarct-related artery in acute myocardial infarction patients: the Korean multicenter chronic total occlusion registry Heart Regeneration by Endogenous Stem Cells and Cardiomyocyte Proliferation: Controversy, Fallacy, and Progress A Test in Context: E/A and E/e' to Assess Diastolic Dysfunction and LV Filling Pressure
|<<... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ...>>|

Original Research2018 Mar 23. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-17-0921.

JOURNAL：Circ J. Article Link

Effect of Side Branch Predilation in Coronary Bifurcation Stenting With the Provisional Approach - Results From the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) II Registry

Lee SH, Song YB, Lee JM et al. Keywords: Bifurcation; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Side branch predilation

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Whether side branch (SB) predilation before main vessel (MV) stenting is beneficial is uncertain, so we investigated the effects of SB predilation on procedural and long-term outcomes in coronary bifurcation lesions treated using the provisional approach.Methods and Results:A total of 1,083 patients with true bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were evaluated. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE): cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. SB predilation was performed in 437 (40.4%) patients. Abrupt (10.5% vs. 11.3%; P=0.76) or final SB occlusion (2.7% vs. 3.9%; P=0.41) showed no differences between the predilation and non-predilation groups. The rates of angiographic success (69.1% vs. 52.9%, P<0.001) and SB stent implantation (69.1% vs. 52.9%, P<0.001) were significantly higher in the predilation group. During a median follow-up of 36 months, we found no significant difference between the groups in the rate of MACE (9.4% vs. 11.5%; P=0.67) in a propensity score-matched population. In subgroup analysis, patients with minimal luminal diameter of the parent vessel ≤1 mm benefited from SB predilation in terms of preventing abrupt SB occlusion (P for interaction=0.04).


CONCLUSIONS - For the treatment of true bifurcation lesions, SB predilation improved acute angiographic and procedural outcomes, but could not improve long-term clinical outcomes. It may benefit patients with severe stenosis in the parent vessel.
>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