CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Bayesian Interpretation of the EXCEL Trial and Other Randomized Clinical Trials of Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization 10-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease A randomized clinical study comparing double kissing crush with provisional stenting for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the DKCRUSH-II (Double Kissing Crush versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions) trial Left Main Revascularization in 2017: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery disease: the 13th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Revascularization of left main coronary artery Safety of intermediate left main stenosis revascularization deferral based on fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-regression including 908 deferred left main stenosis from 12 studies

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.