Suppr超能文献

无保护左主干分叉病变支架置入术的 5 年临床随访:单支架技术与双支架技术对吻技术比较。

Five-year clinical follow-up of unprotected left main bifurcation lesion stenting: one-stent versus two-stent techniques versus double-kissing crush technique.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210006 China.

出版信息

EuroIntervention. 2012 Nov 22;8(7):803-14. doi: 10.4244/EIJV8I7A123.

Abstract

AIMS

The present study aimed to compare the long-term (five-year) safety and efficacy between the one-stent, two-stent and double-kissing (DK) crush strategies, utilising drug-eluting stents, for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) bifurcation lesions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between March 2004 and April 2007, 633 consecutive patients with ULMCA bifurcation lesions (232 in the one-stent group and 401 in the two-stent group) were prospectively enrolled. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR), at five-year follow-up. Patients in the the two-stent group were classified as DK crush (n=155) and other two-stent techniques (culotte, T-stenting, kissing stenting and classical crush, n=246). Forty-seven (16.8%) patients in the one-stent group crossed over to the two-stent group. The one-stent group was associated with an increased incidence of MI compared to the two-stent approach (10.5% vs. 5.5%, p=0.025). The crude rate of MACE at five years was 28.0% in the one-stent group and 28.4% in the two-stent group (p=0.927). DK crush was associated with a significantly decreased five-year MACE compared to the other two-stent approaches or the one-stent approach (DK crush: 14.8% vs. other two-stent approaches: 37.0%, one-stent approach: 28.0%, p<0.001). The main benefit of DK crush primarily appeared to be secondary to a reduction in TVR (7.7% vs. 30.5% vs. 18.1%, p<0.001). By Cox regression analyses, the non-DK crush two-stent technique, a high SYNTAX Score (≥33) or New Risk Stratification (NERS) score (>20), and incomplete revascularisation were shown to be independent predictors of MACE at five-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

With distal left main true bifurcations, the two-stent technique (excluding DK crush) is an independent predictor of long-term MACE. DK crush is associated with more favourable long-term clinical outcomes. Confirmation of these findings is required from randomised controlled trials.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中应用药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗无保护左主干(ULMCA)分叉病变时,单支架、双支架和双吻(DK)挤压策略的 5 年长期安全性和疗效。

方法和结果

2004 年 3 月至 2007 年 4 月,前瞻性纳入 633 例 ULMCA 分叉病变患者(单支架组 232 例,双支架组 401 例)。主要终点为 5 年随访时主要不良心脏事件(MACE)的发生,MACE 为心源性死亡、心肌梗死(MI)和靶血管血运重建(TVR)的复合终点。双支架组患者分为 DK 挤压组(n=155)和其他双支架技术组(culotte、T 支架、吻合并支架及经典挤压,n=246)。单支架组中有 47 例(16.8%)患者交叉至双支架组。与双支架组相比,单支架组 MI 的发生率更高(10.5% vs. 5.5%,p=0.025)。单支架组 5 年 MACE 的粗率为 28.0%,双支架组为 28.4%(p=0.927)。与其他双支架技术或单支架技术相比,DK 挤压组 5 年 MACE 显著降低(DK 挤压组:14.8% vs. 其他双支架技术组:37.0%,单支架组:28.0%,p<0.001)。DK 挤压的主要获益主要归因于 TVR 的降低(7.7% vs. 30.5% vs. 18.1%,p<0.001)。Cox 回归分析显示,非 DK 挤压双支架技术、高 SYNTAX 评分(≥33)或新危险分层(NERS)评分(>20)和不完全血运重建是 5 年随访时 MACE 的独立预测因素。

结论

对于远端左主干真分叉病变,双支架技术(不包括 DK 挤压)是长期 MACE 的独立预测因素。DK 挤压与更有利的长期临床结局相关。需要随机对照试验来证实这些发现。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验