CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Stenting Left Main

Abstract

Recommended Article

What Is the Optimal Revascularization Strategy for Left Main Coronary Stenosis? Why NOBLE and EXCEL Are Consistent With Each Other and With Previous Trials Current treatment of significant left main coronary artery disease: A review Comparison of Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Native Coronary Arteries Versus on Saphenous Venous Aorta Coronary Conduits in Patients With Low Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Impella Device Implantation Achieved or Attempted (from the PROTECT II Randomized Trial and the cVAD Registry) Percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery disease: the 13th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Percutaneous coronary intervention for the left main stem and other bifurcation lesions: 12th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Patient selection and percutaneous technique of unprotected left main revascularization
|<<... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...>>|

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.

>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