CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

双重抗血小板治疗持续时间

Abstract

Recommended Article

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (ALPHEUS): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial Antibody-Based Ticagrelor Reversal Agent in Healthy Volunteers Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Ticagrelor With Aspirin in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients Undergoing Multivessel PCI Trial Design Principles for Patients at High Bleeding Risk Undergoing PCI: JACC Scientific Expert Panel Long-term dual antiplatelet-induced intestinal injury resulting in translocation of intestinal bacteria into blood circulation increased the incidence of adverse events after PCI in patients with coronary artery disease Pooled Analysis of Bleeding, Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events, and All-Cause Mortality in Clinical Trials of Time-Constrained Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Clinical Trial2015 Apr 20;8(4):536-46.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI)

Chen SL, Ye F, Stone GW et al. Keywords: coronary bifurcation lesions; fractional flow reserve; major adverse cardiac events; revascularization; stent thrombosis

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - This study sought to compare the outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided and angiography (Angio)-guided provisional side-branch (SB) stenting for true coronary bifurcation lesions.


BACKGROUND - Angio-guided provisional SB stenting after stenting of the main vessel provides favorable outcomes for the majority of coronary bifurcation lesions. Whether an FFR-guided provisional stenting approach is superior has not been studied.

METHODS - A total of 320 patients with single Medina 1,1,1 and 0,1,1 coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing stenting with a provisional SB approach were randomly assigned 1:1 to Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups. SB stenting was performed for Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade<3, ostial SB stenosis>70%, or greater than type A dissection after main vessel stenting in the Angio-guided group and for SB-FFR<0.80 in the FFR-guided group. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization).

RESULTS - Comparing the Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups, treatment of the SB (balloon or stenting) was performed in 63.1% and 56.3% of lesions respectively (p=0.07); stenting of the SB was attempted in 38.1% and 25.9%, respectively (p=0.01); and, when attempted, stenting was successful in 83.6% and 73.3% of SBs, respectively (p=0.01). The 1-year composite major adverse cardiac event rate was 18.1% in both groups (hazard ratio: 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.48 to 1.88; p=1.00). The 1-year target vessel revascularization and stent thrombosis rates were 6.9% and 5.6% (p=0.82) and 1.3% and 0.6% (p=0.56) in the Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS - In this multicenter, randomized trial, angiographic and FFR guidance of provisional SB stenting of true coronary bifurcation lesions provided similar 1-year clinical outcomes. (Randomized Study on DK Crush Technique Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions; ChiCTR-TRC-07000015).

Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.