CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis Prognostic Value of the Residual SYNTAX Score After Functionally Complete Revascularization in ACS Prognostic and Practical Validation of Current Definitions of Myocardial Infarction Associated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Incidence and prognostic implication of unrecognized myocardial scar characterized by cardiac magnetic resonance in diabetic patients without clinical evidence of myocardial infarction Red Cell Distribution Width in Patients with Diabetes and Myocardial Infarction: an analysis from the EXAMINE trial Effect of Pre-Hospital Crushed Prasugrel Tablets in Patients with STEMI Planned for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Randomized COMPARE CRUSH Trial

Original Research2018 Mar 23. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-17-0921.

JOURNAL:Circ J. Article Link

Effect of Side Branch Predilation in Coronary Bifurcation Stenting With the Provisional Approach - Results From the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) II Registry

Lee SH, Song YB, Lee JM et al. Keywords: Bifurcation; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Side branch predilation

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Whether side branch (SB) predilation before main vessel (MV) stenting is beneficial is uncertain, so we investigated the effects of SB predilation on procedural and long-term outcomes in coronary bifurcation lesions treated using the provisional approach.Methods and Results:A total of 1,083 patients with true bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were evaluated. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE): cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. SB predilation was performed in 437 (40.4%) patients. Abrupt (10.5% vs. 11.3%; P=0.76) or final SB occlusion (2.7% vs. 3.9%; P=0.41) showed no differences between the predilation and non-predilation groups. The rates of angiographic success (69.1% vs. 52.9%, P<0.001) and SB stent implantation (69.1% vs. 52.9%, P<0.001) were significantly higher in the predilation group. During a median follow-up of 36 months, we found no significant difference between the groups in the rate of MACE (9.4% vs. 11.5%; P=0.67) in a propensity score-matched population. In subgroup analysis, patients with minimal luminal diameter of the parent vessel ≤1 mm benefited from SB predilation in terms of preventing abrupt SB occlusion (P for interaction=0.04).


CONCLUSIONS - For the treatment of true bifurcation lesions, SB predilation improved acute angiographic and procedural outcomes, but could not improve long-term clinical outcomes. It may benefit patients with severe stenosis in the parent vessel.