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

Original Research2018 Oct 8. [Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL:Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Self-expandable sirolimus-eluting stents compared to second-generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of the left main: A propensity score analysis from the SPARTA and the FAILS-2 registries

Montefusco A, D'Ascenzo F, Gili S et al. Keywords: percutaneous coronary intervention; second-generation drug-eluting stent; self-expandable stent; unprotected left main

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - To compare the effectiveness and safety of self-expandable, sirolimus-eluting Stentys stents (SES) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES-II) for the treatment of the unprotected left main (ULM).


BACKGROUND - SES may provide a valuable option to treat distal ULM, particularly when significant caliber gaps with side branches are observed.


METHODS - Patients from the multicenter SPARTA (clinicaltrials.gov -  NCT02784405) and FAILS2 registries were included. Propensity-score with matching was performed to account for the lack of randomization. Primary end-point was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization [TLR], unstable angina and definite stent thrombosis [ST]). Single components of MACE were the secondary end-points.


RESULTS - Overall, 151 patients treated with SES and 1270 with DES-II were included; no differences in MACE rate at 250 days were observed (9.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.54). After propensity score with matching, 129 patients treated with SES and 258 with DES-II, of which about a third of female gender, were compared. After a follow-up of 250 days, MACE rate did not differ between the two groups (9.9% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.66), as well as the rate of ULM TLR (1.6% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.36) and definite ST (0.8% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.78). These results were consistent also when controlling for the treatment with provisional vs. 2-stents strategies for the ULM bifurcation.


CONCLUSION - SES use for ULM treatment was associated with a similar MACE rate compared to DES-II at an intermediate-term follow-up. SES might represent a potential option in this setting.

 

© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.