CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血管内超声指导

Abstract

Recommended Article

Novel predictor of target vessel revascularization after coronary stent implantation: Intraluminal intensity of blood speckle on intravascular ultrasound IVUS in bifurcation stenting: what have we learned? The Role of Vascular Imaging in Guiding Routine Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Bare Metal Stent and Drug-Eluting Stent Trials Meta-analysis of outcomes after intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in 26,503 patients enrolled in three randomized trials and 14 observational studies Comprehensive intravascular ultrasound assessment of stent area and its impact on restenosis and adverse cardiac events in 403 patients with unprotected left main disease Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Complex Procedures In-stent neoatherosclerosis: a final common pathway of late stent failure Coronary plaque redistribution after stent implantation is determined by lipid composition: A NIRS-IVUS analysis

Original Research2013 Nov;9(7):809-16.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention.

Buchanan GL, Chieffo A, Colombo A et al. Keywords: rug-eluting stents; PCI; unprotected left main

ABSTRACT


AIMSTo assess two-year outcomes following first vs. new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in unprotected left main (ULMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention.


METHODS AND RESULTSAll eligible patients from our two-centre registry treated with first and new-generation DES from October 2006 to November 2010 were analysed. The study objective was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and myocardial infarction (MI) at two years. In total, 186 patients were included: 93 (50.0%) treated with first vs. 93 (50.0%) with new-generation DES. No differences were observed in baseline clinical characteristics except for higher EuroSCORE with new-generation DES (3.6±2.5 vs. 4.6±2.7; p=0.007). No significant difference was observed in stenting techniques; two stents were used respectively in 53.8% vs. 44.1% (p=0.187). Notably, intravascular ultrasound guidance was more frequent with new-generation DES (46.2% vs. 61.3%; p=0.040). At 730.0 (interquartile range 365.5-1,224.5) days, there was a trend towards improved MACE with new-generation DES (31.2% vs. 19.6%; p=0.070) and a significant reduction in TVR (23.7% vs. 12.0%; p=0.038) and MI (4.3% vs. 0%; p=0.044). Notably, there were four cases of definite stent thrombosis (ST) with first vs. none with new-generation DES (p=0.044).

CONCLUSIONSIn our study, new-generation DES had a trend for less MACE and improved results with regard to MI, TVR and definite ST at two-year follow-up.