CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Stenting Left Main

Abstract

Recommended Article

One or two stents for the distal Left Main bifurcation The DK crush V study - The DK crush V study Left Main Stenting: What We Have Learnt So Far? Comparison of double kissing crush versus Culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study Left Main Bifurcation Angioplasty: Are 2 Stents One Too Many? The Current State of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Provisional versus elective two-stent strategy for unprotected true left main bifurcation lesions: Insights from a FAILS-2 sub-study Impact of coronary anatomy and stenting technique on long-term outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease Novel developments in revascularization for left main coronary artery disease

Original Research2013 Aug 22;9(4):452-62.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

Two-year outcomes of everolimus vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent for the treatment of unprotected left main lesions: a propensity score matching comparison of patients included in the French Left Main Taxus (FLM Taxus) and the LEft MAin Xience (LEMAX) registries

Moynagh A, Salvatella N, Harb T et al. Keywords: stenting; coronary artery disease; outcomes; unprotected left main

ABSTRACT


AIMS - With newer drug-eluting stents (DES), PCI has appeared as an acceptable alternative to cardiac surgery in the treatment of unprotected left main (ULM) lesions. Using data from the French Left Main Taxus and the LEft MAin Xience registries, we compared two-year outcomes in consecutive patients from 2003-2008 using everolimus-eluting stents (EES) vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).


METHODS AND RESULTS - We performed a matched comparison according to SYNTAX score, distal LM stenosis, provisional side-branch T-stenting and single stent use, focusing on the primary endpoints of target vessel MI (TVMI) and target vessel failure (TVF). After propensity score matching, there were 172 patients in each group. There was no difference in gender (76.5% male), age (69.5 ± 11.3 years), diabetes (26.2% vs. 24.4%, p=0.71), NSTEMI (40.7% vs. 40.7%, p=1), or LVEF <40% (11.0% vs. 6.7%, p=0.22). Patients with distal LM lesions (75.9%) were treated using provisional T-stenting in 91.1%. The side branch was stented in 22% of all patients (p=0.51). Cumulative two-year events showed significant differences in TVMI (9.9% vs. 4.1%, p=0.04) and TVF (16.3% vs. 7.6%, p=0.01) for PES and EES, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS - ULM stenting with EES is safer and more effective than PES with a reduction in TLF by 53% at two years.