Impact of stenting technique and bifurcation anatomy on long-term outcomes of PCI for distal unprotected left main coronary disease.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess the associations of stenting strategy and bifurcation anatomy with outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for distal unprotected left main (ULM) coronary disease.
BACKGROUND
There are limited and conflicting data regarding long-term outcomes associated with stenting strategies for PCI of distal ULM coronary disease.
METHODS
Patients undergoing non-emergent PCI for distal ULM coronary disease comprised the study cohort. Baseline characteristics and outcomes including cardiac death, cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI), and overall major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were compared for patients undergoing single-vessel stenting (SVS) versus bifurcation stenting (BS).
RESULTS
Seventy patients underwent treatment of distal ULM coronary disease with PCI. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) were used in 96% and 32 (46%) had BS. Patients undergoing SVS vs BS had more severe disease involving the left circumflex artery. Patients with BS were more likely to experience cardiac death and MI (hazard ratio [HR] 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-11.1; P=.04) or combined MACE (HR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.8-10.2; P=.001). After adjusting for angiographic characteristics of the bifurcation in Cox proportional hazards models, BS remained a significant predictor of MACE.
CONCLUSIONS
In this unselected series of patients undergoing PCI for distal left main disease, a single-vessel stenting strategy was associated with superior long-term outcomes after accounting for angiographic characteristics of the bifurcation. Future studies need to take into account additional factors to clarify the ideal treatment strategy for distal left main disease.
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.