CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Stenting Left Main

Abstract

Recommended Article

Current Interventions for the Left Main Bifurcation Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting According to Lesion Site: Results From the EXCEL Trial Sex differences in left main coronary artery stenting: Different characteristics but similar outcomes for women compared with men Outcomes After Coronary Stenting or Bypass Surgery for Men and Women With Unprotected Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial Impact of different final optimization techniques on long-term clinical outcomes of left main cross-over stenting Access Site and Outcomes for Unprotected Left Main Stem Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis of the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Database Quality of Life after Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Treatment of Left Main Disease Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Prior Cerebrovascular Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...>>|

Original Research2018 Nov 15;271:42-48.

JOURNAL：Int J Cardiol. Article Link

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

Cerrato E, Echavarria-Pinto M, D'Ascenzo F et al. Keywords: Fractional flow reserve; Intravascular ultrasound imaging; Left main intermediate stenosis

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Current guidelines recommend intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) to decide upon ambiguous left main (LM) disease. However, no study has compared the safety of LM revascularization deferral based on FFR or IVUS.


METHODS - MEDLINE/PubMed was systematically screened for studies reporting on deferred treatment of angiographically ambiguous LM based upon FFR or IVUS evaluation. Baseline, angiographic and outcome data were appraised and pooled separately for each strategy according to random-effect models with inverse-variance weighting.


RESULTS - A total of 908 LM stenoses from 7 FFR and 5 IVUS studies were included with median follow-up of 29.0 and 31.5 months respectively. Per year of follow-up occurrence of overall MACE were 5.1% in FFR group and 6.4% in IVUS group while death, myocardial infarction, LM revascularization were respectively 2.6%, 1.5% and 1.8% vs. 3.0%, 0.5% and 2.2%. Meta-regression analysis suggested the influence of a distal LM stenosis on MACE in FFR group (β = 0.06, p = 0.01) and age in IVUS group (β = 0.4, p = 0.001). In individual studies several independent predictors of MACE were identified including use of lower doses of intracoronary adenosine (OR 1.39, p = 0.04) in FFR group and plaque burden (OR 1.34, p = 0.025), number of other diseased vessels (OR 1.39, p = 0.04) and any untreated stenosis (OR 3.80; p = 0.037) in IVUS- studies.


CONCLUSIONS - Deferring LM intermediate stenosis on the basis of FFR or IVUS showed an acceptable and similar risk of events in a mid-term follow-up. Conversely, several different variables related to each technique showed an interaction on outcome.


Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. 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