Suppr超能文献

主血管支架置入后是否应常规进行吻球充气?一项随机试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Should kissing balloon inflation after main vessel stenting be routine in the one-stent approach? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Jinhua Municipal General Hospital, Jinhua, Zhejiang, China.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2018 Jun 27;13(6):e0197580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197580. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

The KBI (kissing balloon inflation) technique is considered the default strategy for the two-stent approach in real world practice. Studies comparing KBI and No-KBI in patients undergoing the one-stent approach have reported conflicting results. The meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the KBI strategy and the No-KBI strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions in the one-stent approach. Five randomized studies were included, and a total of 1264 patients were involved in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was cardiac death. The secondary end points were stent thrombosis, MI (myocardial infarction), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and main vessel and side branch restenosis. Compared with the No-KBI strategy, the KBI strategy was associated with a significant reduction in side branch restenosis (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.30-0.64, p<0.001). A high risk of main vessel restenosis was found in the KBI group (OR: 2.96, 95% CI: 1.74-5.01, p<0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death (OR: 1.89, 95% CI: 0.60-5.95, p = 0.28), stent thrombosis (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.19-4.94, p = 0.98), MI (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.33-1.44, p = 0.30), TLR (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.68-1.90, p = 0.62), or TVR (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75-2.16, p = 0.38). Compared with the No-KBI strategy, the KBI strategy reduced the incidence of side branch restenosis and increased the risk of main branch restenosis in the one-stent approach. However, the clinical outcomes were similar between the KBI and No-KBI groups.

摘要

KBI(亲吻球囊充气)技术被认为是真实世界实践中双支架治疗策略的默认策略。比较 KBI 和非 KBI 在单支架治疗中应用的研究结果存在矛盾。本 meta 分析旨在比较 KBI 策略与非 KBI 策略在单支架治疗冠状动脉分叉病变中的临床结局。共纳入 5 项随机研究,共纳入 1264 例患者。主要结局是心脏死亡。次要终点是支架血栓形成、心肌梗死(MI)、靶病变血运重建(TLR)、靶血管血运重建(TVR)、主血管和侧支再狭窄。与非 KBI 策略相比,KBI 策略显著降低了侧支再狭窄率(OR:0.44,95%CI:0.30-0.64,p<0.001)。KBI 组主血管再狭窄风险较高(OR:2.96,95%CI:1.74-5.01,p<0.001)。两组间心脏死亡发生率(OR:1.89,95%CI:0.60-5.95,p=0.28)、支架血栓形成(OR:0.98,95%CI:0.19-4.94,p=0.98)、MI(OR:0.68,95%CI:0.33-1.44,p=0.30)、TLR(OR:1.14,95%CI:0.68-1.90,p=0.62)或 TVR(OR:1.27,95%CI:0.75-2.16,p=0.38)无显著差异。与非 KBI 策略相比,KBI 策略在单支架治疗中降低了侧支再狭窄的发生率,增加了主支再狭窄的风险。然而,KBI 组与非 KBI 组的临床结局相似。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b3c0/6021082/d8239b5de960/pone.0197580.g001.jpg

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