CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Congestive Heart Failure

Abstract

Recommended Article

Fluid Volume Overload and Congestion in Heart Failure: Time to Reconsider Pathophysiology and How Volume Is Assessed The spectrum of heart failure: value of left ventricular ejection fraction and its moving trajectories Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Inotrope-Dependent Heart Failure Patients - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis INTERMACS Profiles and Outcomes Among Non–Inotrope-Dependent Outpatients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Frailty Is Intertwined With Heart Failure: Mechanisms, Prevalence, Prognosis, Assessment, and Management Vaccination Trends in Patients With Heart Failure - Insights From Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation in patients with systolic heart failure: rationale, design, and baseline patient characteristics Ejection Fraction Pros and Cons: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

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