CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

左主干支架

科研文章

荐读文献

Left Main Stenting: What We Have Learnt So Far? 2-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy The Current State of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Impact of different final optimization techniques on long-term clinical outcomes of left main cross-over stenting Novel developments in revascularization for left main coronary artery disease Bypass Surgery or Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting According to Lesion Site Results From the EXCEL Trial Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial Design and rationale for a randomised comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease: the EXCEL trial

Editorial2019 Oct 12;394(10206):1299-1300.

JOURNAL:Lancet. Article Link

Expansion or contraction of stenting in coronary artery disease?

Taggart DP, Pagano D. Keywords: PCI vs CABG; left main

ABSTRACT


In the past four decades, more than 20 trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have tested whether iterative technical advances in PCI have made it as effective as CABG in patients with stable coronary artery disease. The clinical relevance of most of these trials to real-world practice has, however, been plagued by three issues.


First, by largely enrolling highly selected patients with low-severity coronary artery disease, the trials were inherently biased towards more favourable outcomes for PCI. Second, by limiting follow-up to a few years, the trials hid the accelerating divergence in survival benefit of CABG. Third, even in relatively contemporary trials, surgical patients received substantially inferior medical therapy, thereby mitigating the overall benefits of CABG.