CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Randomized Trial of Stents Versus Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: 5-Year Outcomes of the PRECOMBAT Study Novel developments in revascularization for left main coronary artery disease Bypass Surgery or Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Left Main Revascularization With PCI or CABG in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: EXCEL Trial Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting According to Lesion Site Results From the EXCEL Trial Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial Design and rationale for a randomised comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease: the EXCEL trial Intravascular Ultrasound to Guide Left Main Stem Intervention: A Sub-Study of the NOBLE Trial

Original Research2015 Oct;11(6):625-33.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

The effect of complete percutaneous revascularisation with and without intravascular ultrasound guidance in the drugeluting stent era

Magalhaes MA, Minha S, Torguson R et al. Keywords: IVUS; DES; complete revascularisation

ABSTRACT


AIMS - Our aim was to compare the outcomes of complete revascularisation (CR) and incomplete revascularisation (IR) in multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), with and without intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance, in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era.


METHODS AND RESULTS - Overall, 2,132 consecutive patients with multivessel CAD, defined as at least two epicardial vessels with >70% stenosis, had at least one DES implant. Chronic total occlusions were not analysed. Successful treatment of epicardial vessels and significant branches was termed CR; otherwise, treatment was defined as IR. CR and IR were further categorised according to the use of IVUS. The primary outcome was death or Q-wave myocardial infarction (QWMI). Secondary outcomes included the rates of non-QWMI and repeat revascularisation, the latter assessed as either target vessel revascularisation (TVR) or target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at one year. CR was associated with lower rates of death/QWMI (HR 0.66 [0.4-0.9]; p=0.048) and non-QWMI at one year (1.1% vs. 2.6%; p=0.017). Completeness of revascularisation was not independently associated with repeat intervention, but rates of both TVR (89% vs. 93%; p<0.001) and TLR (91% vs. 95%; p<0.001) were higher with CR than IR. IVUS decreased the rates of TLR irrespective of completeness of revascularisation (p-interaction=0.75).


CONCLUSIONS - CR in selected patients gives better outcomes than IR in multivessel CAD at one year. IVUS guidance can further improve results by reducing rates of repeat intervention irrespective of completeness of revascularisation.