Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Nov;5(11):1133-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.07.010.
The authors sought to compare conservative and aggressive strategies for provisional side branch (SB) intervention in coronary bifurcation lesions.
The optimal provisional approach for coronary bifurcation lesions has not been established.
In this prospective randomized trial, 258 patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion treated with drug-eluting stents were randomized to a conservative (n = 128) or aggressive (n = 130) SB intervention strategy. The criteria for SB intervention after main vessel stenting differed between the conservative and aggressive groups; Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade <3 versus diameter stenosis >75% for non-left main bifurcations and diameter stenosis >75% versus diameter stenosis >50% for left main bifurcations. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 12 months.
Left main bifurcation lesions were noted in 114 patients (44%) and true bifurcation lesions in 171 patients (66%). SB ballooning after main vessel stenting and SB stenting after SB ballooning were performed less frequently in the conservative group than in the aggressive group (25.8% vs. 68.5%, p < 0.001; and 7.0% vs. 30.0%, p < 0.001, respectively). The conservative strategy was associated with a lower incidence of procedure-related myocardial necrosis compared with the aggressive strategy (5.5% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.002). At 12 months, the incidence of target vessel failure was similar in both groups (9.4% in the conservative group vs. 9.2% in the aggressive group, p = 0.97).
Compared with the aggressive strategy, the conservative strategy for provisional SB intervention was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes and a lower incidence of procedure-related myocardial necrosis. (Optimal Strategy for Side Branch Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions [SMART-STRATEGY]; NCT00794014).
作者旨在比较冠状动脉分叉病变中分支(SB)的保守和积极干预策略。
冠状动脉分叉病变的最佳干预方法尚未确定。
在这项前瞻性随机试验中,258 名接受药物洗脱支架治疗的冠状动脉分叉病变患者被随机分为保守(n = 128)或积极(n = 130)SB 干预策略组。主血管支架置入后 SB 干预的标准在保守组和积极组之间存在差异;非左主干分叉病变的血栓溶解心肌梗死血流分级 <3 与直径狭窄 >75%,左主干分叉病变的直径狭窄 >75%与直径狭窄 >50%。主要终点是 12 个月时的靶血管失败(心源性死亡、心肌梗死或靶血管血运重建)。
左主干分叉病变患者 114 例(44%),真性分叉病变患者 171 例(66%)。与积极组相比,保守组主血管支架置入后 SB 球囊扩张和 SB 球囊扩张后 SB 支架置入的比例较低(分别为 25.8% vs. 68.5%,p < 0.001;7.0% vs. 30.0%,p < 0.001)。与积极策略相比,保守策略与较低的手术相关心肌坏死发生率相关(5.5% vs. 17.7%,p = 0.002)。12 个月时,两组的靶血管失败发生率相似(保守组 9.4%,积极组 9.2%,p = 0.97)。
与积极策略相比,冠状动脉分叉病变中分支的保守干预策略与相似的长期临床结果和较低的手术相关心肌坏死发生率相关。(冠状动脉分叉病变分支支架最佳策略研究[SMART-STRATEGY];NCT00794014)。