CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Long-term results after PCI of unprotected distal left main coronary artery stenosis: the Bifurcations Bad Krozingen (BBK)-Left Main Registry Why NOBLE and EXCEL Are Consistent With Each Other and With Previous Trials Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Successful bailout stenting strategy against lethal coronary dissection involving left main bifurcation 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 Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Meta-Analysis of Comparison of 5-Year Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery in the Era of Drug-eluting Stents Management of left main disease: an update

Original Research2009 Jun;2(3):167-77.

JOURNAL:Circ Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term mortality in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis

Park SJ, Kim YH, MAIN-COMPARE Investigators et al. Keywords: IVUS; unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis; PCI; outcome

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Although intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance has been useful in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, its impact on long-term mortality is still unclear.


METHODS AND RESULTS - In the MAIN-COMPARE registry, patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis in a hemodynamically stable condition underwent elective stenting under the guidance of IVUS (756 patients) or conventional angiography (219 patients). Patients with acute myocardial infarction were excluded. The 3-year outcomes between the 2 groups were primarily compared using propensity-score matching in the entire and separate populations according to stent type. In 201 matched pairs of the overall population, there was a tendency of lower risk of 3-year morality with IVUS guidance compared with angiography guidance (6.0% versus 13.6%, log-rank P=0.063; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.03; Cox-model P=0.061). In particular, in 145 matched pairs of patients receiving drug-eluting stent, the 3-year incidence of mortality was lower with IVUS guidance as compared with angiography guidance (4.7% versus 16.0%, log-rank P=0.048; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.02; Cox model P=0.055). In contrast, the use of IVUS guidance did not reduce the risk of mortality in 47 matched pairs of patients receiving bare-metal stent (8.6% versus 10.8%, log-rank P=0.35; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.18 to 1.91; Cox model P=0.38). The risk of myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization was not associated with the use of IVUS guidance.

CONCLUSIONS - Elective stenting with IVUS guidance, especially in the placement of drug-eluting stent, may reduce the long-term mortality rate for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis when compared with conventional angiography guidance.