CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Bifurcation Stenting

Abstract

Recommended Article

Optimal Strategy for Provisional Side Branch Intervention in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: 3-Year Outcomes of the SMART-STRATEGY Randomized Trial A randomized trial of a dedicated bifurcation stent versus provisional stenting in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Final Kissing Ballooning in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated With the 1-Stent Technique: Results From the COBIS II Registry (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry) T and small protrusion (TAP) vs double kissing crush technique: Insights from in-vitro models Impact of bifurcation technique on 2-year clinical outcomes in 773 patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, part I: implanting the first stent in the provisional pathway. The 16th expert consensus document of the European Bifurcation Club Evolution of the Crush Technique for Bifurcation Stenting Treating Bifurcation Lesions: The Result Overcomes the Technique

Clinical Trial2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1907775.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction

Mehta SR, Wood DA, COMPLETE Trial Steering Committee and Investigators. Keywords: STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease; complete vs culprit-lesion PCI; 3 years; superiority

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear.

 

METHODS - We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization.

 

RESULTS - At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P=0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P=0.62 and P=0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively).

 

CONCLUSIONS - Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479)