CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

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

Original Research2011 Jul 1;108(1):8-14.

JOURNAL:Am J Cardiol. Article Link

Role of intravascular ultrasound in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Ahmed K, Jeong MH, Other Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry Investigators. Keywords: IVUS guided PCI;AMI; DES; outcome

ABSTRACT


Stent thrombosis and restenosis remain drawbacks of drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance for stent deployment helps optimize its results in stable patients. The aim of this study was to examine the utility of routine IVUS guidance in patients with AMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Employing data from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR), we analyzed 14,329 patients with AMI from April 2006 through September 2010. Patients with cardiogenic shock and rescue PCI after thrombolysis were excluded. Clinical outcomes of 2,127 patients who underwent IVUS-guided PCI were compared to those of 8,235 patients who did not. Mean age was 63.6 ± 13.5 years and 72.3% were men. Patients undergoing IVUS-guided PCI were younger, more often men, more hyperlipemic, and had increased body mass index and left ventricular ejection fraction. Number of treated vessels and stents used, stent length, and stent diameter were increased in the IVUS-guided group. Multivessel involvement was less frequent and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association type C lesion was more frequent in the IVUS-guided group. Drug-eluting stents were more frequently used compared to bare-metal stents in the IVUS group. There was no significant relation of stent thrombosis between the 2 groups. Twelve-month all-cause death was lower in the IVUS group. After multivariate analysis and propensity score adjustment, IVUS guidance was not an independent predictor for 12-month all-cause death (hazard ratio 0.212, 0.026 to 1.73, p = 0.148). In conclusion, this study does not support routine use of IVUS guidance for stent deployment in patients who present with AMI and undergo PCI.