Nasir Mubarra, Shafique Hafiz Muhammad, Hussain Sajjad, Tuyyab Farhan, Aziz Sohail, Khadim Rehana
Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2020 Sep;30(9):894-899. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2020.09.894.
To assess the short term clinical outcomes for a single-stent (SS) strategy versus a double-stent (DS) strategy in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) lesions.
Descriptive comparative study.
Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, Rawalpindi, Pakistan from January 2017 to April 2018.
SS treatment was defined as stenting of the main branch alone and DS treatment as stenting of both the main and side branches. Patients who underwent LMCA PCI were recruited in the study using consecutive sampling. Crossover technique, with or without kissing balloon (KB) dilatation, was employed in those getting PCI with a SS strategy; whereas, DK crush, mini-crush , culotte and T-stenting techniques were used in patients undergoing PCI with a DS strategy. The primary endpoints were a composite of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) i.e. myocardial infarction, stroke or death and target lesion revascularisation (TLR).
A total of 103 patients were recruited in the study; out of which, 73 underwent LMCA PCI employing a SS technique; whereas, 30 of them were treated with a DS strategy. Mean age of the study participants was 63.2 ±10.6 years. The procedural success rate was 100% in both groups. There was a lower frequency of MACE with single-stent strategy (4.1%) versus the double-stent strategy (16.7%, p=0.031) during the 6-month follow-up period.
In comparison to the two-stent strategy of ULMCA bifurcation intervention, a single-stent approach seems to show favourable clinical outcomes and 6-month MACE-free survival. The choice of optimal revascularisation technique proves to be important for the prognosis; therefore, it requires pragmatic decision-making. Key Words: PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention), ULMCA (unprotected left main coronary artery), SS (single-stent), DS (double-stent), MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events), CABG (cardiopulmonary bypass grafting), TLR (target lesion revascularisation).
评估在无保护左主干冠状动脉(ULMCA)远端病变的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中,单支架(SS)策略与双支架(DS)策略的短期临床结局。
描述性比较研究。
2017年1月至2018年4月,巴基斯坦拉瓦尔品第武装部队心脏病研究所。
SS治疗定义为仅对主支进行支架置入,DS治疗定义为主支和分支均进行支架置入。采用连续抽样的方法招募接受左主干冠状动脉介入治疗的患者。采用SS策略进行PCI的患者采用交叉技术,伴或不伴亲吻球囊(KB)扩张;而采用DS策略进行PCI的患者使用DK挤压、迷你挤压、裤裙式和T型支架技术。主要终点是主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的复合终点,即心肌梗死、中风或死亡以及靶病变血运重建(TLR)。
本研究共招募了103例患者;其中,73例采用SS技术进行左主干冠状动脉介入治疗;而其中30例采用DS策略治疗。研究参与者的平均年龄为63.2±10.6岁。两组的手术成功率均为100%。在6个月的随访期内,单支架策略的MACE发生率(4.1%)低于双支架策略(16.7%,p=0.031)。
与ULMCA分叉病变介入治疗的双支架策略相比,单支架方法似乎显示出良好的临床结局和6个月无MACE生存率。事实证明,选择最佳的血运重建技术对预后很重要;因此,这需要务实的决策。关键词:PCI(经皮冠状动脉介入治疗),ULMCA(无保护左主干冠状动脉),SS(单支架),DS(双支架),MACE(主要不良心血管事件),CABG(冠状动脉旁路移植术),TLR(靶病变血运重建)