CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Stenting Left Main

Abstract

Recommended Article

Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. Incidence and Management of Restenosis After Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Disease With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents (from Failure in Left Main Study With 2nd Generation Stents-Cardiogroup III Study) Management of left main disease: an update Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Everolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. The PRECOMBAT-2 (Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) 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 Randomized Trial of Stents Versus Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: 5-Year Outcomes of the PRECOMBAT Study Long-Term Outcomes of Different Two-Stent Techniques With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Bifurcation Disease: Insights From the FAILS-2 Study
|<<... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...>>|

Original Research

JOURNAL：Circulation. Article Link

EUROPCR 2019 - ARC Defined High Bleeding Risk in PCI Patients

CBSMD

Pre-reading

Currently available bleeding risk scores are listed in Table 2. PRECISE-DAPT with Class IIb, Evidence A was recommended by ESC in 2017.

These risk scores were developed based on randomized trials with significant heterogeneity with respect to the patient population, such differences highlight the need for a standardized definition of HBR:

1. The differences in eligibility criteria (all-comer, patients at increased bleeding risk) and enrolled patient populations in completed trials are reflected in the differences in bleeding event rates, varies from 3.5-7.3%。

2. Patients unsuitable for long-term DAPT continue to be systematically excluded.

3. Clinical trials of DAPT strategies after stenting have also excluded patients at HBR, with reported major bleeding rates at 1 year varying between 0.3% and 2.8% (Table 1).

4. Subjects at HBR are still underrepresented in contemporary studies.




To optimize the identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk under going PCI, "Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk" proposed the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients under going PCI. This white paper covers 20 criteria (14 major criteria and 6 minor criteria) which can assist clinicians identify patients with 1 major criterion or 2 minor criteria as high bleeding risk rapidly and make clinical decisions accordingly.







>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