CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Current treatment of significant left main coronary artery disease: A review 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 Management of left main disease: an update 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 Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. Long-Term Outcomes After PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease According to Lesion Location 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
|<<... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...>>|

Clinical TrialAugust 2018. [Epub ahead]

JOURNAL：JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

A Randomized Study of Distal Filter Protection Versus Conventional Treatment During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Attenuated Plaque Identified by Intravascular Ultrasound

K Hibi, K Kozuma, S Sonoda et al. Keywords: acute coronary syndrome(s); distal embolism; distal protection device; intravascular ultrasound

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of distal protection during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndromes at high risk for distal embolization.


BACKGROUND - The results of previous clinical trials indicated that the routine use of distal protection in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction did not improve clinical outcomes. However, selective use of distal protection by means of a filter-based distal protection system has not been evaluated.

METHODS - Two hundred patients with acute coronary syndromes who had native coronary artery lesions and attenuated plaque with longitudinal length ≥5 mm on pre-PCI intravascular ultrasound were randomly assigned to undergo PCI with distal protection or conventional treatment.

RESULTS - The primary endpoint (no-reflow phenomenon) occurred in 26 patients (26.5%) in the distal protection group and 39 patients (41.7%) in the conventional treatment group (p = 0.026), and the corrected TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) frame count after revascularization was significantly lower in the distal protection group (23 vs. 30.5; p = 0.0003). The incidence of cardiac death, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock after revascularization requiring defibrillation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was significantly lower in the distal protection group than in the conventional treatment group (0% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS - The use of distal embolic protection applied with a filter device decreased the incidence of the no-reflow phenomenon and was associated with fewer serious adverse cardiac events after revascularization than conventional PCI in patients with acute coronary syndromes with attenuated plaque ≥5 mm in length. (Assessment of Distal Protection Device in Patients at High Risk for Distal Embolism in Acute Coronary Syndrome [ACS] [VAMPIRE3]; NCT01460966)
>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