Suppr超能文献

真性左主干分叉病变分叉 DEFINITION 标准的验证和支架置入策略的比较。

Validation of bifurcation DEFINITION criteria and comparison of stenting strategies in true left main bifurcation lesions.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.

Catheterization Laboratories, Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2020 Jun 26;10(1):10461. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67369-9.

Abstract

There are controversies on optimal stenting strategy regarding true left main (LM) bifurcation lesions. The present study compared 1- and 2-stenting strategy for patients with true LM bifurcation lesions as differentiated by DEFINITION criteria. 928 patients with true LM bifurcation lesions (Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1) treated with DES were enrolled consecutively. 297 (32.0%) patients were identified as complex LM bifurcation, and 631 (68.0%) patients into simple LM bifurcation group according to DEFINTION criteria. Patients in complex vs. simple LM bifurcation group had significantly higher major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI] and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) rate at 30 days (7.8% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.01), 1 year (10.3% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.04), and numerically at 3 years (14.2% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.07), which was mainly driven by increased MI. Moreover, patients in the 2-stent strategy group had strong trend towards lower incidence of cardiac death in both complex LM bifurcation group (2.0% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.08) and simple LM bifurcation group (1.9% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.07). In conclusion, the complex bifurcation lesion criteria established in DEFINITION study was able to risk-stratify LM bifurcation patients. Two-stent technique yielded numerically lower 3-year cardiac mortality regardless of LM bifurcation complexity.

摘要

关于真正的左主干(LM)分叉病变,在最优支架置入策略方面存在争议。本研究根据 DEFINITION 标准比较了 1 支架和 2 支架策略在真正的 LM 分叉病变患者中的应用。连续纳入 928 例接受 DES 治疗的真正 LM 分叉病变患者(Medina 1,1,1 或 0,1,1)。根据 DEFINITION 标准,297 例(32.0%)患者被确定为复杂 LM 分叉病变,631 例(68.0%)患者为简单 LM 分叉病变组。复杂 LM 分叉病变组与简单 LM 分叉病变组患者在 30 天(7.8% vs. 4.0%,p=0.01)、1 年(10.3% vs. 6.4%,p=0.04)和 3 年(14.2% vs. 10.1%,p=0.07)时的主要不良心脏事件(MACE,包括心源性死亡、心肌梗死[MI]和缺血驱动的靶血管血运重建)发生率显著较高,这主要是由 MI 增加所致。此外,2 支架策略组患者在复杂 LM 分叉病变组(2.0% vs. 5.9%,p=0.08)和简单 LM 分叉病变组(1.9% vs. 4.5%,p=0.07)中心脏死亡发生率有下降趋势。总之,DEFINITION 研究中建立的复杂分叉病变标准能够对 LM 分叉病变患者进行风险分层。无论 LM 分叉病变的复杂程度如何,2 支架技术都能降低 3 年的心脏死亡率。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e25e/7320001/5ac03e43df7a/41598_2020_67369_Fig1_HTML.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