CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease Low Endothelial Shear Stress Predicts Evolution to High-Risk Coronary Plaque Phenotype in the Future: A Serial Optical Coherence Tomography and Computational Fluid Dynamics Study Long-term dual antiplatelet-induced intestinal injury resulting in translocation of intestinal bacteria into blood circulation increased the incidence of adverse events after PCI in patients with coronary artery disease A randomized clinical study comparing double kissing crush with provisional stenting for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the DKCRUSH-II (Double Kissing Crush versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions) trial Prognostic Value of Computed Tomography-Derived Extracellular Volume in TAVR Patients With Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Endocardium Minimally Contributes to Coronary Endothelium in the Embryonic Ventricular Free Walls Left Main Revascularization in 2017: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Acute Coronary Syndrome, Antiplatelet Therapy, and Bleeding: A Clinical Perspective Trial Design Principles for Patients at High Bleeding Risk Undergoing PCI: JACC Scientific Expert Panel Pooled Analysis of Bleeding, Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events, and All-Cause Mortality in Clinical Trials of Time-Constrained Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
|<<... 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 ...>>|

Clinical TrialVolume 11, Issue 13, July 2018

JOURNAL：JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting According to Lesion Site Results From the EXCEL Trial

AH Gershlick, DE Kandzari, GW Stone et al. Keywords: EXCEL; left main stem; lesion site; substudy

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES - The authors sought to determine the extent to which the site of the left main coronary artery (LM) lesion (distal bifurcation versus ostial/shaft) influences the outcomes of revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).


BACKGOURND - Among 1,905 patients with LM disease and site-assessed SYNTAX scores of <32 randomized in the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, revascularization with PCI and CABG resulted in similar rates of the composite primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 3 years.

METHODS - Outcomes from the randomized EXCEL trial were analyzed according to the presence of angiographic core laboratory–determined diameter stenosis ≥50% involving the distal LM bifurcation (n = 1,559; 84.2%) versus disease isolated to the LM ostium or shaft (n = 293; 15.8%).

RESULTS - At 3 years, there were no significant differences between PCI and CABG for the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or stroke for treatment of both distal LM bifurcation disease (15.6% vs. 14.9%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.42; p = 0.61) and isolated LM ostial/shaft disease (12.4% vs. 13.5%, OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.81; p = 0.77) (pinteraction = 0.65). However, at 3 years, ischemia-driven revascularization occurred more frequently after PCI than CABG in patients with LM distal bifurcation disease (13.0% vs. 7.2%, OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.41 to 2.85; p = 0.0001), but were not significantly different in patients with disease only at the LM ostium or shaft (9.7% vs. 8.4%, OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.52 to 2.69; p = 0.68) (pinteraction = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS - In the EXCEL trial, PCI and CABG resulted in comparable rates of death, MI, or stroke at 3 years for treatment of LM disease, including those with distal LM bifurcation disease. Repeat revascularization rates during follow-up after PCI compared with CABG were greater for lesions in the distal LM bifurcation but were similar for disease isolated to the LM ostium or shaft.
>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