CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Stenting Left Main

Abstract

Recommended Article

Long-term safety and effectiveness of unprotected left main coronary stenting with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents or first-generation Paclitaxel-eluting stents for unprotected left main disease EXCELling in Left Main Intervention Left Main Revascularization in 2017: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: comparison with bare metal stent implantation 10-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Safety of intermediate left main stenosis revascularization deferral based on fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-regression including 908 deferred left main stenosis from 12 studies Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Optimal Stent Strategy in Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Stenting
|<<... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2012 Oct 2;60(14):1217-22.

JOURNAL：J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents or first-generation Paclitaxel-eluting stents for unprotected left main disease

Valenti R, Migliorini A, Parodi G et al. Keywords: drug-eluting stent(s); everolimus-eluting stent(s); paclitaxel-eluting stent(s)

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES - The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with outcomes of patients treated with first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for unprotected left main disease (ULMD).


BACKGROUND - No data exist about the comparison of these 2 types of stents in ULMD.

METHODS - The primary endpoint of the study was a 1-year composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke (MACE). Secondary endpoints were 1-year target vessel failure (TVF) and 9-month angiographic in-segment restenosis >50%.

RESULTS - From 2004 to 2010, a total of 390 patients underwent ULMD percutaneous coronary intervention (224 received PES and 166 EES). The 1-year MACE rate was 21.9% in the PES group and 10.2% in the EES group (p = 0.002). TVF rate was 20.5% in the PES group and 7.8% in the EES group (p < 0.001). The in-segment restenosis rate was 5.2% in the EES group and 15.6% in the PES group (p = 0.002). EES and EuroSCORE were the only variables related to the risk of MACE. EES (odds ratio: 0.32; p = 0.007) was also independently related to the risk of restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS - EES implantation for ULMD is associated with a reduced incidence of 1-year MACE, TVF, and restenosis as compared with PES implantation.

Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top