CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Percutaneous Support Devices for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Association of Thrombus Aspiration With Time and Mortality Among Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized TOTAL Trial Cardiac MRI Endpoints in Myocardial Infarction Experimental and Clinical Trials JACC Scientific Expert Panel Treating Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Why, How, and When? Chronic Kidney Disease and Coronary Artery Disease Aggressive lipid-lowering therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention – for whom and how? Positive remodelling of coronary arteries on computed tomography coronary angiogram: an observational study Ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus aspirin from month 1 to month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ULTIMATE-DAPT): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical 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.