首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>BMJ Open >A randomised comparison of Conventional versus Intentional straTegy in patients with high Risk prEdiction of Side branch OccLusion in coronary bifurcation interVEntion: rationale and design of the CIT-RESOLVE trial
【2h】

A randomised comparison of Conventional versus Intentional straTegy in patients with high Risk prEdiction of Side branch OccLusion in coronary bifurcation interVEntion: rationale and design of the CIT-RESOLVE trial

机译:冠状动脉分叉术中侧支阻塞高风险预测患者常规策略与有意策略的随机比较:CIT-RESOLVE试验的原理和设计

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

IntroductionThe intentional strategy (aggressive side branch (SB) protection strategy: elective two-stent strategy or jailed balloon technique) is thought to be associated with lower SB occlusion rate than conventional strategy (provisional two-stent strategy or jailed wire technique). However, most previous studies showed comparable outcomes between the two strategies, probably due to no risk classification of SB occlusion when enrolling patients. There is still no randomised trial compared the intentional and conventional strategy when treating bifurcation lesions with high risk of SB occlusion. We aim to investigate if intentional strategy is associated with significant reduction of SB occlusion rate compared with conventional strategy in high-risk patients.
机译:简介故意策略(攻击性侧支(SB)保护策略:选择性两支架策略或监狱气球技术)被认为比传统策略(临时两支架策略或监狱铁丝技术)具有更低的SB闭塞率。但是,大多数先前的研究显示两种策略之间的可比较结果,可能是由于招募患者时没有SB闭塞的风险分类。在治疗SB闭塞风险高的分叉病变时,尚无将有意和常规策略进行比较的随机试验。我们旨在研究与高风险患者的常规策略相比,故意策略是否与SB闭塞率的显着降低有关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号