• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

经皮分叉左主干血运重建应用现代药物洗脱支架的 1 年和 3 年结果:系统评价和荟萃分析。

One- and 3-year outcomes of percutaneous bifurcation left main revascularization with modern drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Endoluminal Interventions Unit, Rovigo General Hospital, Viale tre Martiri, 45100, Rovigo, Italy.

University of Ferrara, School of Medicine, Ferrara, Italy.

出版信息

Clin Res Cardiol. 2021 Jan;110(1):1-11. doi: 10.1007/s00392-020-01679-w. Epub 2020 May 30.

DOI:10.1007/s00392-020-01679-w
PMID:32474643
Abstract

AIMS

Optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for coronary left main (LM) bifurcation lesions remains controversial. We performed systematic review and meta-analysis comparing one and 3-year clinical outcomes of 1- and 2- stent strategies using modern drug eluting stents (DESs) for revascularization of LM bifurcation disease.

METHODS

We systematically identified all investigations published between January 2015 and February 2020 comparing the use of single versus double-stent strategies for the revascularization of LM bifurcation lesions. The primary endpoint was 1- and 3-years all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included target lesion revascularization (TLR), target lesion failure (TLF), major adverse cardiovascular vents (MACEs) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality while the tertiary outcome was overall occurrence of stent thrombosis (ST) at 1- and 3-years.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality rate both at 1 and 3-year follow-up. Single stent strategy was associated with a significantly lower risk of TLR (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62- 0.97, p = 0.03, I = 61%) as well as of MACEs (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.97, I = 24%) compared to 2-stent strategy. Conversely no significant differences between the two groups were observed in terms of TLF, CV mortality and ST during the same follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LM bifurcation disease, single stent strategy demonstrated lower rate of MACEs and TLR but was not superior to 2-stent strategy in terms of CV mortality, TLF and ST at 1 and 3-year follow-up.

摘要

目的

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)治疗左主干(LM)分叉病变的最佳策略仍存在争议。我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,比较了使用现代药物洗脱支架(DES)进行 LM 分叉病变血运重建的单支架和双支架策略的 1 年和 3 年临床结果。

方法

我们系统地检索了 2015 年 1 月至 2020 年 2 月期间发表的所有比较单支架与双支架策略用于 LM 分叉病变血运重建的研究。主要终点是 1 年和 3 年全因死亡率。次要终点包括靶病变血运重建(TLR)、靶病变失败(TLF)、主要不良心血管事件(MACE)和心血管(CV)死亡率,而三级终点是 1 年和 3 年时总的支架血栓形成(ST)发生率。

结果

两组在 1 年和 3 年随访时的全因死亡率均无显著差异。单支架策略与 TLR(OR 0.78,95%CI 0.62-0.97,p=0.03,I=61%)和 MACEs(OR 0.78,95%CI 0.63-0.97,I=24%)的风险显著降低相关,与双支架策略相比。然而,在同一随访期间,两组在 TLF、CV 死亡率和 ST 方面无显著差异。

结论

在 LM 分叉病变患者中,单支架策略显示出较低的 MACEs 和 TLR 发生率,但在 1 年和 3 年随访时,CV 死亡率、TLF 和 ST 方面并不优于双支架策略。

相似文献

1
One- and 3-year outcomes of percutaneous bifurcation left main revascularization with modern drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.经皮分叉左主干血运重建应用现代药物洗脱支架的 1 年和 3 年结果:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Clin Res Cardiol. 2021 Jan;110(1):1-11. doi: 10.1007/s00392-020-01679-w. Epub 2020 May 30.
2
Differential prognostic impact of treatment strategy among patients with left main versus non-left main bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) Registry II.左主干病变与非左主干分叉病变行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者的治疗策略对预后的影响差异:COBIS(冠状动脉分叉病变支架置入)注册研究 II 的结果。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Mar;7(3):255-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.11.009. Epub 2014 Feb 13.
3
Prognostic Effects of Treatment Strategies for Left Main Versus Non-Left Main Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Current-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent.当前代药物洗脱支架经皮冠状动脉介入治疗左主干与非左主干分叉病变的治疗策略的预后影响。
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Feb;13(2):e008543. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008543. Epub 2020 Feb 7.
4
Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting for Left Main Distal Bifurcation Lesions: DKCRUSH-V Randomized Trial.双对吻挤压术与预扩张支架术治疗左主干远端分叉病变的随机对照研究(DKCRUSH-V 研究)
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Nov 28;70(21):2605-2617. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.1066. Epub 2017 Oct 30.
5
Long-Term Outcomes of Different Two-Stent Techniques With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Bifurcation Disease: Insights From the FAILS-2 Study.第二代药物洗脱支架治疗无保护左主干分叉病变不同双支架技术的长期预后:来自FAILS-2研究的见解
J Invasive Cardiol. 2018 Aug;30(8):276-281.
6
Long-term outcomes after percutaneous revascularization of complex coronary bifurcation lesions using a dedicated self-expanding biolimus-eluting stent system.使用专用自膨胀生物可吸收涂层洗脱支架系统对复杂冠状动脉分叉病变进行经皮血管重建后的长期结果。
Cardiol J. 2018;25(4):470-478. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2017.0141. Epub 2017 Dec 14.
7
Clinical outcome after crush versus culotte stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: the Nordic Stent Technique Study 36-month follow-up results.经皮冠状动脉分叉病变挤压与 Culotte 支架置入术的临床结果:北欧支架技术研究 36 个月随访结果。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Nov;6(11):1160-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.06.009.
8
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration Determines Outcome After 2- But Not 1-Stent Strategy in Left Main Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.左主干分叉经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中 2 支架策略而非 1 支架策略后双联抗血小板治疗时间决定结局。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Dec 24;11(24):2453-2463. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.09.020.
9
Comparison of simple versus complex stenting in patients with true distal left main bifurcation lesions.真左主干分叉病变患者单纯支架术与复杂支架术的对比。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Apr 1;97(5):776-785. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29219. Epub 2020 Sep 8.
10
Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.比较单支架与系统性双支架策略治疗无保护左主干分叉病变的临床结局:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023 Jul 24;10:1145412. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1145412. eCollection 2023.

引用本文的文献

1
Composite outcomes of drug-coated balloon using in left main bifurcation lesions: a systematic review.药物涂层球囊用于左主干分叉病变的复合结局:一项系统评价。
J Geriatr Cardiol. 2024 Nov 28;21(11):1047-1059. doi: 10.26599/1671-5411.2024.11.001.
2
Prognostic Impact of a Routine Six-Month Exercise Stress Test after Complex Left Main Bifurcation Percutaneous Intervention.复杂左主干分叉经皮介入术后常规六个月运动负荷试验的预后影响
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Dec 26;14(1):59. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14010059.
3
Comparing the clinical outcomes of single vs. systematic dual stenting strategies for unprotected left main bifurcation lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

本文引用的文献

1
Prognostic Effects of Treatment Strategies for Left Main Versus Non-Left Main Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Current-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent.当前代药物洗脱支架经皮冠状动脉介入治疗左主干与非左主干分叉病变的治疗策略的预后影响。
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Feb;13(2):e008543. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008543. Epub 2020 Feb 7.
2
The European Bifurcation Club Left Main Study (EBC MAIN): rationale and design of an international, multicentre, randomised comparison of two stent strategies for the treatment of left main coronary bifurcation disease.欧洲分叉俱乐部左主干研究(EBC MAIN):两种支架策略治疗左主干冠状动脉分叉病变的国际多中心随机对照研究的原理与设计
EuroIntervention. 2016 May 17;12(1):47-52. doi: 10.4244/EIJV12I1A8.
3
比较单支架与系统性双支架策略治疗无保护左主干分叉病变的临床结局:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023 Jul 24;10:1145412. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1145412. eCollection 2023.
4
Single versus Double Stenting in NSTEMI Patients with Complex Left Main Bifurcation Disease.非ST段抬高型心肌梗死合并复杂左主干分叉病变患者的单支架与双支架置入术对比
J Clin Med. 2022 Jun 20;11(12):3559. doi: 10.3390/jcm11123559.
5
Improved Outcomes of Combined Main Branch Stenting and Side Branch Drug-Coated Balloon versus Two-Stent Strategy in Patients with Left Main Bifurcation Lesions.左主干分叉病变患者采用主支支架联合边支药物球囊与双支架策略治疗的转归改善。
J Interv Cardiol. 2022 Jan 11;2022:8250057. doi: 10.1155/2022/8250057. eCollection 2022.
6
Left main bifurcation stenting: the impact of strut thickness on long-term outcomes.左主干分叉病变支架置入术:支架厚度对长期预后的影响。
J Geriatr Cardiol. 2021 Feb 28;18(2):91-93. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2021.02.008.
7
Long-term safety of paclitaxel drug-coated balloon-only angioplasty for de novo coronary artery disease: the SPARTAN DCB study.紫杉醇药物涂层球囊仅行血管成形术治疗新发冠状动脉疾病的长期安全性:SPARTAN DCB 研究。
Clin Res Cardiol. 2021 Feb;110(2):220-227. doi: 10.1007/s00392-020-01734-6. Epub 2020 Sep 2.
One-stent versus two-stent techniques for distal unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions.单支架与双支架技术治疗无保护左主干远端冠状动脉分叉病变
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Aug 15;8(8):14363-70. eCollection 2015.
4
Single versus double stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.单支架与双支架治疗无保护左主干冠状动脉分叉病变:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
J Invasive Cardiol. 2014 Jun;26(6):229-33.
5
Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions.冠状动脉支架试验中的临床终点:标准化定义的必要性
Circulation. 2007 May 1;115(17):2344-51. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.685313.