American heart journal · 2006
Single-vessel versus bifurcation stenting for the treatment of distal left main coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stenting era. Clinical and angiographic insights into the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) and Taxus-Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registries.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Valgimigli Marco, Malagutti Patrizia, Rodriguez Granillo Gaston A, Tsuchida Keiichi, Garcia-Garcia Héctor M, van Mieghem Carlos A G, Van der Giessen Willem J, De Feyter Pim, de Jaegere Peter, Van Domburg Ron T, Serruys Patrick W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Routine drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation has recently improved outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous treatment of left main (LM) coronary artery. However, even in the DES era, distal LM treatment remains an independent predictor of poor outcome. Whether single-vessel stenting (SVS) or bifurcation stenting (BS) should be performed to optimize treatment of such a lesion is unclear.
METHODS: From April 2002 to June 2004, 94 patients affected by distal LM disease underwent percutaneous intervention at our institution either with SVS (n = 48) or BS (n = 46). The 2 groups were well balanced for all baseline characteristics but the extension of disease in the LM carina.
RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 587 days (range, 328-1179), the cumulative incidence of MACE was similar between the 2 groups (31% in the BS vs 28% in SVS group, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.46-1.49, P = .92), with no difference for the composite death/myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization. After adjustment for confounders, the technique of stenting was not a predictor of either major adverse cardiac events or target vessel revascularization. Angiographic analysis--performed in 81% of eligible patients in SVS and 87% in the BS group--confirmed the equivalency between SVS versus BS.
CONCLUSIONS: In consecutive patients undergoing catheter-based distal LM intervention, SVS or BS may perform equally under both clinical and angiographic perspective in current DES era.
METHODS: From April 2002 to June 2004, 94 patients affected by distal LM disease underwent percutaneous intervention at our institution either with SVS (n = 48) or BS (n = 46). The 2 groups were well balanced for all baseline characteristics but the extension of disease in the LM carina.
RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 587 days (range, 328-1179), the cumulative incidence of MACE was similar between the 2 groups (31% in the BS vs 28% in SVS group, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.46-1.49, P = .92), with no difference for the composite death/myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization. After adjustment for confounders, the technique of stenting was not a predictor of either major adverse cardiac events or target vessel revascularization. Angiographic analysis--performed in 81% of eligible patients in SVS and 87% in the BS group--confirmed the equivalency between SVS versus BS.
CONCLUSIONS: In consecutive patients undergoing catheter-based distal LM intervention, SVS or BS may perform equally under both clinical and angiographic perspective in current DES era.