Clinical outcome after management of unprotected left main in-stent restenosis after bare metal or drug-eluting stents.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Implantation of either bare metal stent (BMS) or drug-eluting stent (DES) has been used in every day practice for patients with unprotected left main stenosis (UPLMS). There are still a lack of data regarding the subsequent results of UPLMS in-stent restenosis (ISR). The present study aimed at determining the clinical outcome of UPLMS ISR patients after implantation of either BMS or DES.
METHODS
Patients with UPLMS ISR after stenting were included. The primary endpoint was the cumulative major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR).
RESULTS
UPLMS ISR rate was 14.8% (n = 73, 15.7% after BMS, 14.5% for DES) after average of (3.89 +/- 2.01) years (range from 1 to 10.5 years) follow-up. Angiographic follow-up between 6 - 8 months was available in 85.3%. Of these, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was used in 62 (84.9%) patients, with medicine only in 9 (12.4%) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in 2 (2.7%). Most repeat PCI patients were with unstable angina (87.0%), and had decreased left ventricular ejection fraction ((42.58 +/- 5.12)%), fewer focal/ostial left circumflex branch (LCX) lesions, in relative to medicine only group. After (31.9 +/- 23.3) months, the MACE, MI, TVR and cardiac death were 31.5%, 1.4%, 24.1% and 8.2%, respectively. Definite and possible stent thrombosis occurred in 1 (1.4%) patient.
CONCLUSIONS
Medical therapy for asymptomatic isolated ostial LCX was safe. Repeat PCI for UPLMS ISR was associated with acceptable early and short-term clinical outcome. Further study was needed to elucidate the role of CABG in treating UPLMS ISR.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.