CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

Bifurcation Stenting

科研文章

荐读文献

Effect of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on the geometry of coronary bifurcation lesions and clinical outcomes of coronary interventions in the J-REVERSE registry T and small protrusion (TAP) vs double kissing crush technique: Insights from in-vitro models Treating Bifurcation Lesions: The Result Overcomes the Technique 3-Year Outcomes After 2-Stent With Provisional Stenting for Complex Bifurcation Lesions Defined by DEFINITION Criteria The European bifurcation club Left Main Coronary Stent study: a randomized comparison of stepwise provisional vs. systematic dual stenting strategies (EBC MAIN) A Randomized Trial Evaluating Online 3-Dimensional Optical Frequency Domain Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Bifurcation Lesions Impact of stent deformity induced by the kissing balloon technique for bifurcating lesions on in-stent restenosis after coronary intervention Selection of stenting approach for coronary bifurcation lesions Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Incidence of Adverse Events at 3 Months Versus at 12 Months After Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Cessation in Patients Treated With Thin Stents With Unprotected Left Main or Coronary Bifurcations

Clinical TrialJune 2018

JOURNAL:JACC Clin Electrophysiol. Article Link

Improving the Use of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Therapy With Validated Patient-Centric Risk Estimates

WC Levy, AS Hellkamp, DB Mark et al. Keywords: heart failure; ICD; non-sudden death; prognosis; proportional risk; regression analysis; risk prediction model; sudden death

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The authors previously developed the Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM) in systolic heart failure patients without implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs)to predict the proportion of deaths that were sudden. They subsequently validated the SPRM in 2 observational ICD data sets. The objectives in the present study were to determine whether this validated model could improve identification of clinically important variations in the expected magnitude of ICD survival benefit by using a pivotal randomized trial of primary prevention ICD therapy.


BACKGROUND - Recent data show that <50% of nominally eligible subjects receive guideline- recommended primary prevention ICDs.

METHODS - In the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial), a placebo-controlled ICD trial in 2,521 patients with an ejection fraction ≤35% and symptomatic heart failure, we tested the use of patient-level SPRM-predicted probability of sudden death (relative to that of non-sudden death) as a summary measurement of the potential for ICD benefit. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate variations in the relationship between patient-level SPRM predictions and ICD benefit.

RESULTS - Relative to use of mortality predictions with the Seattle Heart Failure Model, the SPRM was much better at partitioning treatment benefit from ICD therapy (effect size was 2- to 3.6-fold larger for the ICD×SPRM interaction). ICD benefit varied significantly across SPRM-predicted risk quartiles: for all-cause mortality, a +10% increase with ICD therapy in the first quartile (highest risk of death, lowest proportion of sudden death) to a decrease of 66% in the fourth quartile (lowest risk of death, highest proportion of sudden death; p = 0.0013); for sudden death mortality, a 19% reduction in SPRM quartile 1 to 95% reduction in SPRM quartile 4 (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS - In symptomatic systolic heart failure patients with a Class I recommendation for primary prevention ICD therapy, the SPRM offers a useful patient-centric tool for guiding shared decision making.