CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

科学研究

Abstract

Recommended Article

Comparison of Stenting Versus Bypass Surgery According to the Completeness of Revascularization in Severe Coronary Artery Disease: Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of the SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, and BEST Trials Triage Considerations for Patients Referred for Structural Heart Disease Intervention During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: An ACC /SCAI Consensus Statement Multimodality imaging in cardiology: a statement on behalf of the Task Force on Multimodality Imaging of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging 4-Step Protocol for Disparities in STEMI Care and Outcomes in Women Early Natural History of Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Readmissions Where Are the Solutions? Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality in Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Percutaneous Interventions With Coronary Bypass Surgery: A Meta-analysis Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial
|<<... 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2017 Oct 4.[Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL：Int J Cardiol. Article Link

Provisional versus elective two-stent strategy for unprotected true left main bifurcation lesions: Insights from a FAILS-2 sub-study

Kawamoto H, Chieffo A, Colombo A et al. Keywords: Drug-eluting stent; Percutaneous coronary intervention; True bifurcation lesions; Unprotected left main coronary artery

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - This study sought to investigate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for true unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) bifurcations.

METHODS - The FAILS-2 was a retrospective multi-center study including patients with ULMCA disease treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents. Of these, we compared clinical outcomes of a provisional strategy (PS; n=216) versus an elective two-stent strategy (E2S; n=161) for true ULMCA bifurcations. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 3-years. We further performed propensity-score adjustment for clinical outcomes.


RESULTS - There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of patient and lesion characteristics. 9.7% of patients in the PS group crossed over to a provisional two-stent strategy. MACEs were not significantly different between groups (MACE at 3-year; PS 28.1% vs. E2S 28.9%, adjusted p=0.99). The rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) on the circumflex artery (LCX) were numerically high in the E2S group (LCX-TLR at 3-years; PS 11.8% vs. E2S 16.6%, adjusted p=0.51).


CONCLUSIONS - E2S was associated with a comparable MACE rate to PS for true ULMCA bifurcations. The rates of LCX-TLR tended to be higher in the E2S group although there was no statistical significance.


CONDENSED ABSTRACT - This study sought to compare the clinical outcomes of a provisional strategy (PS) with an elective two-stent strategy (E2S) for the treatment of true unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcations. 377 Patients (PS 216 vs. E2S 161 patients) were evaluated, and 9.7% in the PS group crossed over to a two-stent strategy. E2S was associated with a similar major adverse cardiac event rate at 3-years when compared to the PS strategy (PS 28.1% vs. E2S 28.9%, p=0.99). However, the left circumflex artery TLR rate at 3-year tended to be higher in the E2S group (PS 11.8% vs. E2S 16.6%, p=0.51).

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top