CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

双重抗血小板治疗持续时间

科研文章

荐读文献

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy with Clopidogrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label Trial to Compare Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel vs. Ticagrelor in Stabilized Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction after Percutan eous Coronary Intervention: rationale and design of the TALOS-AMI trial Osteoarthritis risk is reduced after treatment with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel: a propensity score matching analysis 1-Year Outcomes of Delayed Versus Immediate Intervention in Patients With Transient ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration in Medically Managed Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Sub-Analysis of the OPT-CAD Study Individualized antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent deployment: Implication of clinical trials of different durations of dual antiplatelet therapy Extended antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel alone versus clopidogrel plus aspirin after completion of 9- to 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome patients with both high bleeding and ischemic risk. Rationale and design of the OPT-BIRISK double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial Evolution of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a 40-year journey Long-term dual antiplatelet-induced intestinal injury resulting in translocation of intestinal bacteria into blood circulation increased the incidence of adverse events after PCI in patients with coronary artery disease

Clinical Trial2008 Dec;1(3):185-92.

JOURNAL:Circ Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Impact of bifurcation technique on 2-year clinical outcomes in 773 patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents

Palmerini T, Marzocchi A, Tamburino C et al.

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis represents a technical challenge for interventional cardiologists. In this study, we compared 2-year clinical outcomes of different stenting strategies in patients with distal ULMCA stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents.


METHODS AND RESULTS - The survey promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology on ULMCA stenosis was an observational study on patients with ULMCA stenosis treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. In this study, we selected patients with distal ULMCA stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. Seven hundred seventy-three patients were eligible for this study: 456 were treated with 1 stent (group 1) and 317 with 2 stents (group 2). The primary end point of the study was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as the occurrence of mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. During a 2-year follow-up, risk-adjusted survival free from MACE was significantly higher in patients in group 1 than in patients in group 2. The propensity-adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of 2-year MACE in patients in group 1 versus group 2 was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.76). The propensity-adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of 2-year cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction in patients in group 1 versus group 2 was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS - Compared with the 2-stent technique, the 1-stent technique is associated with a better 2-year MACE-free survival. The stenting strategy is a prognostic factor that should be taken into account when deciding the optimal revascularization treatment.