Department of Cardiology, Bankstown Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Department of Cardiology, Bankstown Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Heart Lung Circ. 2024 Aug;33(8):1123-1135. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2024.02.006. Epub 2024 Apr 12.
The optimal management strategy for significant unprotected ostial left anterior descending artery (LAD) disease remains undefined. Merits of the two most common percutaneous approaches are considered in this quantitative synthesis.
A meta-analysis was performed to compare ostial stenting (OS) and crossover stenting (CS) in the treatment of unprotected ostial LAD stenosis. The primary outcome is the disparity in target lesion revascularisation (TLR). The Mantel-Haenszel method was employed with random effect model, chosen a priori to account for heterogeneity among the included studies.
Seven studies comprising 1,181 patients were included in the analyses. Of these, 482 (40.8%) patients underwent CS. Overall, there was a statistically significant trend in favour of CS (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.86, p=0.01) with respect to the rate of TLR at follow-up. This remained true when TLR involving the left circumflex artery (LCx) was considered, even when there was a greater need for unintended intervention to the LCx during the index procedure (odds ratio 6.68, 95% confidence interval: 1.69-26.49, p=0.007). Final kissing balloon inflation may reduce the need for acute LCx intervention. Imaging guidance appeared to improve clinical outcomes irrespective of approach chosen.
In the percutaneous management of unprotected ostial LAD disease, CS into the left main coronary artery (LMCA) appeared to reduce future TLR. Integration of intracoronary imaging was pivotal to procedural success. The higher incidence of unintended LCx intervention in the CS arm may be mitigated by routine final kissing balloon inflation, although the long-term implication of this remains unclear. In the absence of randomised trials, clinicians' discretion remains critical.
对于严重无保护的左前降支(LAD)开口病变,最佳的治疗策略仍未确定。本研究旨在比较两种最常见的经皮介入方法的优缺点。
进行了一项荟萃分析,比较经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中的开口支架置入术(OS)和交叉支架置入术(CS)治疗无保护的左前降支开口狭窄的效果。主要终点是靶病变血运重建(TLR)的差异。采用 Mantel-Haenszel 方法进行分析,选择随机效应模型,预先考虑到纳入研究之间的异质性。
纳入的 7 项研究共 1181 例患者,其中 482 例(40.8%)患者接受 CS。总体而言,CS 组的 TLR 发生率明显低于 OS 组(优势比 0.51,95%置信区间 0.30-0.86,p=0.01)。当考虑到回旋支(LCx)病变时,这种趋势仍然存在,即使在指数手术中需要更多地对 LCx 进行意外干预(优势比 6.68,95%置信区间:1.69-26.49,p=0.007)。最后行球囊对吻扩张术可能减少急性 LCx 干预的需要。无论选择哪种方法,影像学指导似乎都能改善临床结局。
在经皮治疗无保护的左前降支开口病变时,CS 进入左主干(LMCA)似乎可以降低未来的 TLR。腔内影像学的整合对手术成功至关重要。CS 组中 LCx 意外干预的发生率较高,可能通过常规的最后行球囊对吻扩张术来减轻,但长期影响尚不清楚。在没有随机试验的情况下,临床医生的判断仍然至关重要。