CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Comparison of Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Native Coronary Arteries Versus on Saphenous Venous Aorta Coronary Conduits in Patients With Low Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Impella Device Implantation Achieved or Attempted (from the PROTECT II Randomized Trial and the cVAD Registry) Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials New-onset atrial fibrillation after PCI and CABG for left main disease: insights from the EXCEL trial and additional studies Differences between the left main and other bifurcations Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Impact of coronary anatomy and stenting technique on long-term outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease Comparative effectiveness analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with chronic kidney disease and unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Review ArticleVolume 13, Number 6, 2017 Aug 25

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

State of the art: duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary stent implantation - past, present and future perspectives.

Gargiulo G, Valgimigli M, Capodanno D et al. Keywords: percutaneous coronary intervention ; dual antiplatelet therapy; randomised trials

ABSTRACT

Evidence from studies published more than 10 years ago suggested that patients receiving first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) needed dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for at least 12 months. Current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) reported within the past five years suggests that patients with stable ischaemic heart disease who receive newer-generation DES need DAPT for a minimum of three to six months. Patients who undergo stenting for an acute coronary syndrome benefit from DAPT for at least 12 months, but a Bayesian network meta-analysis confirms that extending DAPT beyond 12 months confers a trade-off between reduced ischaemic events and increased bleeding. However, the network meta-analysis finds no credible increase in all-cause mortality if DAPT is lengthened from three to six months to 12 months (posterior median odds ratio [OR] 0.98; 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI]: 0.73-1.43), from 12 months to 18-48 months (OR 0.87; 95% BCI: 0.64-1.17), or from three to six months to 18-48 months (OR 0.86; 95% BCI: 0.63-1.21). Future investigation should focus on identifying scoring systems that have excellent discrimination and calibration. Although predictive models should be incorporated into systems of care, most decisions about DAPT duration will be based on clinical judgement and patient preference.