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 r...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 regading the subsequent results of UPLMS in-stent restenosis （ISR）. The present study aimed at determing 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 （Ml）, 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, Ml, 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.展开更多
Background It is still controversial whether percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent （DES） is safe and effective compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery （CABG） for unprotected left main...Background It is still controversial whether percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent （DES） is safe and effective compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery （CABG） for unprotected left main coronary artery （ULMCA） disease at long-term follow up （≥3 years）. Methods Eligible studies were selected by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to December 6, 2016. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction （MI） or stroke during the longest follow-up. Death, cardiac death, MI, stroke and repeat revascularization were the secondary outcomes. Results Four randomized controlled trials and twelve adjusted observational studies involving 14,130 patients were included. DES was comparable to CABG regarding the occurrence of the primary endpoint （FIR = 0.94, 95% CI： 0.86-1.03）. Besides, DES was significantly associated with higher incidence of MI （HR = 1.56, 95% CI： 1.09-2.22） and repeat revascularization （HR = 3.09, 95% CI： 2.33-4.10） compared with CABG, while no difference was found between the two strategies regard as the rate of death, cardiac death and stroke. Furthermore, DES can reduce the risk of the composite endpoint of death, MI or stroke （HR = 0.80, 95% CI： 0.67-0.95） for ULMCA lesions with SYNTAX score ≤32. Conclusions Although with higher risk of repeat revascularization, PCI with DES appears to be as safe as CABG for ULMCA disease at long-term follow up. In addition, treatment with DES could be an alternative interventional strategy to CABG for ULMCA lesions with low to intermediate anatomic complexity.展开更多
文摘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 regading the subsequent results of UPLMS in-stent restenosis （ISR）. The present study aimed at determing 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 （Ml）, 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, Ml, 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.
文摘Background It is still controversial whether percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent （DES） is safe and effective compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery （CABG） for unprotected left main coronary artery （ULMCA） disease at long-term follow up （≥3 years）. Methods Eligible studies were selected by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to December 6, 2016. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction （MI） or stroke during the longest follow-up. Death, cardiac death, MI, stroke and repeat revascularization were the secondary outcomes. Results Four randomized controlled trials and twelve adjusted observational studies involving 14,130 patients were included. DES was comparable to CABG regarding the occurrence of the primary endpoint （FIR = 0.94, 95% CI： 0.86-1.03）. Besides, DES was significantly associated with higher incidence of MI （HR = 1.56, 95% CI： 1.09-2.22） and repeat revascularization （HR = 3.09, 95% CI： 2.33-4.10） compared with CABG, while no difference was found between the two strategies regard as the rate of death, cardiac death and stroke. Furthermore, DES can reduce the risk of the composite endpoint of death, MI or stroke （HR = 0.80, 95% CI： 0.67-0.95） for ULMCA lesions with SYNTAX score ≤32. Conclusions Although with higher risk of repeat revascularization, PCI with DES appears to be as safe as CABG for ULMCA disease at long-term follow up. In addition, treatment with DES could be an alternative interventional strategy to CABG for ULMCA lesions with low to intermediate anatomic complexity.
