International journal of cardiology · 2016
Differential effect of side branch intervention on long-term clinical outcomes according to side branch stenosis after main vessel stenting: Results from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) Registry II.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jang Woo Jin, Park Yong Hwan, Hahn Joo-Yong, Song Young Bin, Choi Seung-Hyuk, Chun Woo Jung, Hyeon Oh Ju, Koo Bon-Kwon, Rha Seung Woon, Jang Yangsoo, Tahk Seung-Jea, Kim Hyo-Soo, Gwon Hyeon-Cheol
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Indication of side branch (SB) intervention after main vessel (MV) stenting is not established for coronary bifurcation lesions.
METHODS: We evaluated 2017 patients who were treated with 1-stent technique or MV stenting as a first strategy. Patients undergoing SB intervention after MV stenting (SB intervention group, n=929) were compared to those treated with MV stenting only (no-SB intervention group, n=1088).
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 37months, cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) tended to occur less frequently in the SB intervention group than in the no-SB intervention group (1.8% versus 2.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-1.11; P=0.09). There was a significant interaction between SB intervention and SB stenosis after MV stenting (P for interaction <0.01). Among 1077 patients with diameter stenosis of SB ≥50% after MV stenting, SB intervention was associated with a lower risk of cardiac death or MI (1.2% versus 4.2%; adjusted HR 0.22; 95% CI 0.09-0.52; P<0.01). However, among 940 patients with diameter stenosis of SB <50%, there was no significant difference in cardiac death or MI between the SB intervention group and the no-SB intervention group (3.5% versus 2.2%; adjusted HR 1.36; 95% CI 0.58-3.20; P=0.48).
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of SB intervention differed according to SB stenosis after MV stenting. SB intervention may reduce cardiac death or MI in bifurcation lesions with diameter stenosis of SB ≥50% after MV stenting.
METHODS: We evaluated 2017 patients who were treated with 1-stent technique or MV stenting as a first strategy. Patients undergoing SB intervention after MV stenting (SB intervention group, n=929) were compared to those treated with MV stenting only (no-SB intervention group, n=1088).
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 37months, cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) tended to occur less frequently in the SB intervention group than in the no-SB intervention group (1.8% versus 2.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-1.11; P=0.09). There was a significant interaction between SB intervention and SB stenosis after MV stenting (P for interaction <0.01). Among 1077 patients with diameter stenosis of SB ≥50% after MV stenting, SB intervention was associated with a lower risk of cardiac death or MI (1.2% versus 4.2%; adjusted HR 0.22; 95% CI 0.09-0.52; P<0.01). However, among 940 patients with diameter stenosis of SB <50%, there was no significant difference in cardiac death or MI between the SB intervention group and the no-SB intervention group (3.5% versus 2.2%; adjusted HR 1.36; 95% CI 0.58-3.20; P=0.48).
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of SB intervention differed according to SB stenosis after MV stenting. SB intervention may reduce cardiac death or MI in bifurcation lesions with diameter stenosis of SB ≥50% after MV stenting.