CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Bayesian Interpretation of the EXCEL Trial and Other Randomized Clinical Trials of Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization Optimizing outcomes during left main percutaneous coronary intervention with intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve: the current state of evidence Incidence and Management of Restenosis After Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Disease With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents (from Failure in Left Main Study With 2nd Generation Stents-Cardiogroup III Study) Revascularization of left main coronary artery 10-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease EXCELling in Left Main Intervention Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Optimal Stent Strategy in Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Left Main Revascularization in 2017: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?
|<<... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...>>|

Original Research2013 Nov;9(7):809-16.

JOURNAL：EuroIntervention. Article Link

Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention.

Buchanan GL, Chieffo A, Colombo A et al. Keywords: rug-eluting stents; PCI; unprotected left main

ABSTRACT

AIMS - To assess two-year outcomes following first vs. new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in unprotected left main (ULMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention.


METHODS AND RESULTS - All eligible patients from our two-centre registry treated with first and new-generation DES from October 2006 to November 2010 were analysed. The study objective was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and myocardial infarction (MI) at two years. In total, 186 patients were included: 93 (50.0%) treated with first vs. 93 (50.0%) with new-generation DES. No differences were observed in baseline clinical characteristics except for higher EuroSCORE with new-generation DES (3.6±2.5 vs. 4.6±2.7; p=0.007). No significant difference was observed in stenting techniques; two stents were used respectively in 53.8% vs. 44.1% (p=0.187). Notably, intravascular ultrasound guidance was more frequent with new-generation DES (46.2% vs. 61.3%; p=0.040). At 730.0 (interquartile range 365.5-1,224.5) days, there was a trend towards improved MACE with new-generation DES (31.2% vs. 19.6%; p=0.070) and a significant reduction in TVR (23.7% vs. 12.0%; p=0.038) and MI (4.3% vs. 0%; p=0.044). Notably, there were four cases of definite stent thrombosis (ST) with first vs. none with new-generation DES (p=0.044).

CONCLUSIONS - In our study, new-generation DES had a trend for less MACE and improved results with regard to MI, TVR and definite ST at two-year follow-up.
>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