CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Stenting Left Main

Abstract

Recommended Article

One or two stents for the distal Left Main bifurcation The DK crush V study - The DK crush V study Left Main Stenting: What We Have Learnt So Far? Comparison of double kissing crush versus Culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study Left Main Bifurcation Angioplasty: Are 2 Stents One Too Many? The Current State of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Provisional versus elective two-stent strategy for unprotected true left main bifurcation lesions: Insights from a FAILS-2 sub-study Impact of coronary anatomy and stenting technique on long-term outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease Novel developments in revascularization for left main coronary artery disease

Clinical TrialSeptember 28, 2019

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease

Stone GW, Kappetein AP, EXCEL Trial Investigators. Keywords: left main coronary artery disease; low or intermediate anatomical complexity; PCI vs CABG; 5 year outcome

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents, as compared with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with left main coronary artery disease are not clearly established.


METHODS - We randomly assigned 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity (according to assessment at the participating centers) to undergo either PCI with fluoropolymer-based cobaltchromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction.


RESULTS - At 5 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 22.0% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.2% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 6.5; P=0.13). Death from any cause occurred more frequently in the PCI group than in the CABG group (in 13.0% vs. 9.9%; difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.1). In the PCI and CABG groups, the incidences of definite cardiovascular death (5.0% and 4.5%, respectively; difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.5) and myocardial infarction (10.6% and 9.1%; difference, 1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.2) were not significantly different. All cerebrovascular events were less frequent after PCI than after CABG (3.3% vs. 5.2%; difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.8 to 0), although the incidence of stroke was not significantly different between the two groups (2.9% and 3.7%; difference, 0.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.4 to 0.9). Ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequent after PCI than after CABG (16.9% vs. 10.0%; difference, 6.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.7 to 10.0).


CONCLUSIONS - In patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity, there was no significant difference between PCI and CABG with respect to the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number,NCT01205776.)