CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

双重抗血小板治疗持续时间

Abstract

Recommended Article

Short- versus long-term duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting: a randomized multicenter trial Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration: Reconciling the Inconsistencies Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial A new strategy for discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy: the RESET Trial (REal Safety and Efficacy of 3-month dual antiplatelet Therapy following Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation) Clopidogrel or ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with newer-generation drug-eluting stents: CHANGE DAPT Six-month versus 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of drug-eluting stents: the Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher to Reduce Late Loss After Stenting (EXCELLENT) randomized, multicenter study Dual-antiplatelet treatment beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation (ARCTIC-Interruption): a randomised trial Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation: a randomized, controlled trial.

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.