CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Long-term outcomes following mini-crush versus culotte stenting for the treatment of unprotected left main disease: insights from the Milan and New-Tokyo (MITO) registry Provisional versus elective two-stent strategy for unprotected true left main bifurcation lesions: Insights from a FAILS-2 sub-study Second vs. First generation drug eluting stents in multiple vessel disease and left main stenosis: Two-year follow-up of the observational, prospective, controlled, and multicenter ERACI IV registry Successful bailout stenting strategy against lethal coronary dissection involving left main bifurcation Why NOBLE and EXCEL Are Consistent With Each Other and With Previous Trials Meta-Analysis of Comparison of 5-Year Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery in the Era of Drug-eluting Stents Intravascular Ultrasound to Guide Left Main Stem Intervention: A Sub-Study of the NOBLE Trial Management of left main disease: an update

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.