CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Left-main restenosis in the DES era-a call for action Current Interventions for the Left Main Bifurcation One or two stents for the distal Left Main bifurcation The DK crush V study - The DK crush V study Left Main Revascularization in 2017 Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Comparison of double kissing crush versus Culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study Usefulness of the SYNTAX score II to validate 2-year outcomes in patients with complex coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A large single-center study Design and rationale for the treatment effects of provisional side branch stenting and DK crush stenting techniques in patients with unprotected distal left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions (DKCRUSH V) Trial Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting for Left Main Distal Bifurcation Lesions: DKCRUSH-V Randomized Trial

Original ResearchApril 2020 Vol 13, Issue 4

JOURNAL:Circ Cardiovasc Interv Article Link

Global Approach to High Bleeding Risk Patients With Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents: The LF II Study

MW Krucoff , P Urban, J-F Tanguay et al. Keywords: high bleeding risk; PCI; DCS

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - High bleeding risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have been widely excluded from randomized device registration trials. The LF study (LEADERS FREE) reported superior outcomes of HBR patients receiving 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with a polymer-free drug-coated stent (DCS). LFII was designed to assess the reproducibility and generalizability of the benefits of DCS observed in LF to inform the US Food and Drug Administration in a device registration decision.

 

METHODS - LFII was a single-arm study using HBR inclusion/exclusion criteria and 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with DCS, identical to LF. The 365-day rates of the primary effectiveness (clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) and safety (composite cardiac death and myocardial infarction) end points were reported using a propensity-stratified analysis compared with the LF bare metal stent arm patients as controls.

 

RESULTS - A total of 1203 LFII patients were enrolled with an average 1.7 HBR criteria per patient, including 60.7% >75 years of age, 34.1% on anticoagulants, and 14.7% with renal failure. Propensity-adjusted 365-day clinically indicated target lesion revascularization was significantly lower with DCS (7.2% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.520.98]; P=0.0338 for superiority), as was the primary safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction) composite (9.3% versus 12.4%; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.550.94]; P=0.0150 for superiority). Stent thrombosis rates were 2.0% DCS and 2.2% bare metal stent. Major bleeding at 1 year occurred in 7.2% DCS patients and 7.2% bare metal stent.

 

CONCLUSIONS - LFII reproduces the results of the DCS arm of LF in an independent, predominantly North American cohort of HBR patients.