The Journal of invasive cardiology · 2014
Single versus double stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Karrowni Wassef, Makki Nader, Dhaliwal Amandeep S, Vyas Ankur, Blevins Amy, Dughman Saadeddine, Girotra Saket, Cram Peter, Horwitz Phillip A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We conducted a meta-analysis to assess outcomes for a single-stent (SS) strategy versus a double-stent (DS) strategy in treatment of distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) lesions in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era.
BACKGROUND: Routine use of DES implantation has contributed to improved outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for disease involving the ULMCA. However, PCI for ULMCA bifurcation lesions continues to be technically demanding and is an independent predictor of poor outcomes. While a number of stenting techniques have been described, the optimal strategy remains unknown.
METHODS: SS treatment was defined as stenting of the main branch alone and DS treatment as stenting of both the main and side branches. Our co-primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and its individual components.
RESULTS: We identified 7 observational studies involving 2328 patients. Mean duration of follow-up was 32 months. We adopted the random effect model when computing the combined odds ratio (OR). There was decreased risk of MACE with SS strategy (20.4%) versus DS strategy (32.8%) (OR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.73). There was also decreased target vessel/target lesion revascularization (TLR/TVR) with SS strategy (10.1%) versus DS strategy (24.3%) (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.49).
CONCLUSION: Compared to the DS strategy of percutaneous ULMCA bifurcation intervention, an SS approach may be associated with better outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Routine use of DES implantation has contributed to improved outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for disease involving the ULMCA. However, PCI for ULMCA bifurcation lesions continues to be technically demanding and is an independent predictor of poor outcomes. While a number of stenting techniques have been described, the optimal strategy remains unknown.
METHODS: SS treatment was defined as stenting of the main branch alone and DS treatment as stenting of both the main and side branches. Our co-primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and its individual components.
RESULTS: We identified 7 observational studies involving 2328 patients. Mean duration of follow-up was 32 months. We adopted the random effect model when computing the combined odds ratio (OR). There was decreased risk of MACE with SS strategy (20.4%) versus DS strategy (32.8%) (OR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.73). There was also decreased target vessel/target lesion revascularization (TLR/TVR) with SS strategy (10.1%) versus DS strategy (24.3%) (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.49).
CONCLUSION: Compared to the DS strategy of percutaneous ULMCA bifurcation intervention, an SS approach may be associated with better outcomes.