CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Usefulness of the SYNTAX score II to validate 2-year outcomes in patients with complex coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A large single-center study Contemporary Approach to Coronary Bifurcation Lesion Treatment Left Main Stenting: What We Have Learnt So Far? 2-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy The Current State of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Impact of different final optimization techniques on long-term clinical outcomes of left main cross-over stenting Novel developments in revascularization for left main coronary artery disease Bypass Surgery or Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes

Editorial2019 Oct 12;394(10206):1299-1300.

JOURNAL:Lancet. Article Link

Expansion or contraction of stenting in coronary artery disease?

Taggart DP, Pagano D. Keywords: PCI vs CABG; left main

ABSTRACT


In the past four decades, more than 20 trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have tested whether iterative technical advances in PCI have made it as effective as CABG in patients with stable coronary artery disease. The clinical relevance of most of these trials to real-world practice has, however, been plagued by three issues.


First, by largely enrolling highly selected patients with low-severity coronary artery disease, the trials were inherently biased towards more favourable outcomes for PCI. Second, by limiting follow-up to a few years, the trials hid the accelerating divergence in survival benefit of CABG. Third, even in relatively contemporary trials, surgical patients received substantially inferior medical therapy, thereby mitigating the overall benefits of CABG.