CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Expansion or contraction of stenting in coronary artery disease? Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Clinical Outcome After DK Crush Versus Culotte Stenting of Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: The 3-Year Follow-Up Results of the DKCRUSH-III Study EXCELling in Left Main Intervention Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents or first-generation Paclitaxel-eluting stents for unprotected left main disease Impact of Staging Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Left Main Artery Disease: Insights From the EXCEL Trial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Left Main Disease: Pre- and Post-EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Everolimus Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) and NOBLE (Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularization Study) Era Impact of coronary anatomy and stenting technique on long-term outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease

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.