CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

左主干支架

科研文章

荐读文献

Successful bailout stenting strategy against lethal coronary dissection involving left main bifurcation Revascularization in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction Management of left main disease: an update Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Long-Term Outcomes After PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease According to Lesion Location 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 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 Clinical Outcome After DK Crush Versus Culotte Stenting of Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: The 3-Year Follow-Up Results of the DKCRUSH-III Study Differential prognostic impact of treatment strategy among patients with left main versus non-left main bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) Registry II Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention.
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2010 Mar 16;121(10):1235-43.

JOURNAL：Circulation. Article Link

Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies

Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N et al. Keywords: Simple Versus Complex Drug-Eluting Stenting; Bifurcation Lesions

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques.


METHODS AND RESULTS - Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64+/-10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations (>50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simple group (n=250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n=250), 89% of culotte (n=75) and 72% of crush (n=169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P=0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P=0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P=0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach.

CONCLUSIONS - When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases. Clinical Trial Registration Information- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00351260.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top