CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Stenting Left Main

Abstract

Recommended Article

Left-main restenosis in the DES era-a call for action 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 Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease New-onset atrial fibrillation after PCI and CABG for left main disease: insights from the EXCEL trial and additional studies Radial versus femoral artery access in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease: analysis from the EXCEL trial Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Distal Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention 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 Outcomes of patients with and without baseline lipid-lowering therapy undergoing revascularization for left main coronary artery disease: analysis from the EXCEL trial
|<<... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...>>|

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