CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

双重抗血小板治疗持续时间

Abstract

Recommended Article

Six Versus 12 Months of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Implantation of Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent: Randomized Substudy of the I-LOVE-IT 2 Trial Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents Major Bleeding Rates in Atrial Fibrillation Patients on Single, Dual, or Triple Antithrombotic Therapy Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration: Reconciling the Inconsistencies 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 Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation: a randomized, controlled trial. Switching of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy After PCI in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The RE-DUAL PCI Trial Subanalysis

Clinical Trial2015 Dec;11(8):856-9.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

Long-term outcomes of routine versus provisional T-stenting for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions: five-year results of the Bifurcations Bad Krozingen I study

Ferenc M, Ayoub M, Büttner HJ et al. Keywords: bifurcation stenting; routine T-stenting; provisional T-stenting; outcome

ABSTRACT


AIMS - Previously, we reported that the nine-month angiographic result after treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with provisional T-stenting was not significantly different from that with routine T-stenting. To compare long-term clinical outcomes of the two stenting strategies, we extended the follow-up of our study on bifurcation stenting.

 

METHODS AND RESULTS - One hundred and one patients with coronary bifurcation lesions had been randomly assigned to provisional T-stenting and 101 to routine T-stenting, using sirolimus-eluting stents. We performed complete five-year follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST). We also monitored death, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE (composite of death, MI and TLR). The cumulative five-year incidence of TLR in the provisional T-stenting arm was not significantly different from that in the routine T-stenting arm (16.2% vs. 16.3%, p=0.97). The same was true for MACE (22.8% vs. 22.9%, p=0.91), the composite of death and MI (9.9% vs. 13.9%, p=0.40), and ST (2.0% vs. 5.1%; p=0.25).

 

CONCLUSIONS - During five-year follow-up, routine T-stenting offered no advantage over provisional T-stenting with respect to TLR or MACE. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00288535