Kang Se Hun, Ahn Jung-Min, Lee Jung-Bok, Lee Cheol Hyun, Kang Do-Yoon, Lee Pil Hyung, Kang Soo-Jin, Lee Seung-Whan, Kim Young-Hak, Lee Cheol Whan, Park Seong-Wook, Park Duk-Woo, Park Seung-Jung
Department of Cardiology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam.
Department of Cardiology.
Coron Artery Dis. 2019 Jan;30(1):33-43. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000672.
Coronary bifurcations are common in daily practice of percutaneous coronary intervention and remain one of the most challenging lesions, but it is still unknown how characteristics, treatment strategy, and outcomes have changed over the last decade of drug-eluting stents (DES) era. We evaluated characteristics of treatment pattern and outcomes for patients with bifurcation disease over time in real-world clinical practice.
A total of 7282 patients with coronary bifurcation lesions were pooled from the Interventional Cardiology Research Incorporation Society-Drug-Eluting Stents registry and the Interventional Research Incorporation Society-Left MAIN registry. Primary outcome was a target-vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-vessel revascularization.
Among the total population, 2232 (30.7%) had left main bifurcation lesions. The use of one-stent strategy was more frequent in conjunction with second-generation DES (86.2 vs. 13.8%) than with first-generation DES (65.4 vs. 34.6%). Two-stent strategy was associated with a higher risk of TVF as compared with one-stent strategy [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-1.47, P<0.001]. However, the risk of TVF with two-stent strategy relative to one-stent strategy has decreased from the first-generation DES (HR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.22-1.99, P<0.001) to the second-generation DES (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.94-1.34, P=0.19).
For patients with bifurcation disease, stenting strategy has become more simpler and percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes have more improved over time. One-stent strategy relative to two-stent strategy was associated with better clinical outcomes, but the advantage of one-stent strategy was less pronounced with the use of second-generation DES.
冠状动脉分叉病变在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的日常实践中很常见,仍然是最具挑战性的病变之一,但在药物洗脱支架(DES)时代的过去十年中,其特征、治疗策略和结果如何变化仍不清楚。我们在真实世界的临床实践中评估了分叉病变患者治疗模式的特征和随时间的结果。
总共7282例冠状动脉分叉病变患者来自介入心脏病学研究协会-药物洗脱支架注册研究和介入研究协会-左主干注册研究。主要结局是靶血管失败(TVF),定义为心源性死亡、靶血管心肌梗死或临床指征的靶血管血运重建的复合终点。
在总人群中,2232例(30.7%)有左主干分叉病变。与第一代DES(65.4%对34.6%)相比,第二代DES联合使用单支架策略更为频繁(86.2%对13.8%)。与单支架策略相比,双支架策略与更高的TVF风险相关[调整后风险比(HR):1.28,95%置信区间(CI):1.12-1.47,P<0.001]。然而,双支架策略相对于单支架策略的TVF风险已从第一代DES(HR:1.56,95%CI:1.22-1.99,P<0.001)降至第二代DES(HR:1.12,95%CI:0.94-1.34,P=0.19)。
对于分叉病变患者,随着时间的推移,支架置入策略变得更加简单,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的结果有了更大改善。与双支架策略相比,单支架策略与更好的临床结局相关,但使用第二代DES时单支架策略的优势不那么明显。