首页> 外文期刊>JACC. Cardiovascular interventions >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
【24h】

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

机译:经皮冠状动脉介入治疗在左主干分叉病变与非左主干分叉病变中治疗策略的预后差异:COBIS(冠状动脉分叉支架术)注册系统II的结果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objectives: The authors sought to investigate whether the impact of treatment strategies on clinical outcomes differed between patients with left main (LM) bifurcation lesions and those with non-LM bifurcation lesions. Background: Few studies have considered anatomic location when comparing 1- and 2-stent strategies for bifurcation lesions. Methods: We compared the prognostic impact of treatment strategies on clinical outcomes in 2,044 patients with non-LM bifurcation lesions and 853 with LM bifurcation lesions. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization. Results: The 2-stent strategy was used more frequently in the LM bifurcation group than in the non-LM bifurcation group (40.3% vs. 20.8%, p < 0.01). During a median follow-up of 36 months, the 2-stent strategy was not associated with a higher incidence of cardiac death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 2.14; p = 0.44), cardiac death or MI (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.58 to 2.19; p = 0.73), or TLF (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.94; p = 0.06) in the non-LM bifurcation group. In contrast, in patients with LM bifurcation lesions, the 2-stent strategy was associated with a higher incidence of cardiac death (HR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.05 to 5.59; p = 0.04), cardiac death or MI (HR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.08 to 4.04; p = 0.03), as well as TLF (HR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.60 to 3.55; p < 0.01). Significant interactions were present between treatment strategies and bifurcation lesion locations for TLF (p = 0.01). Conclusions: The 1-stent strategy, if possible, should initially be considered the preferred approach for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, especially LM bifurcation lesions. (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting [COBIS] Registry II; NCT01642992)
机译:目的:作者试图调查在左主干(LM)分叉病变患者和非左主干(LM)分叉病变患者中,治疗策略对临床结局的影响是否存在差异。背景:很少有研究在比较分叉病变的1和2支架策略时考虑解剖位置。方法:我们比较了治疗策略对2,044例非LM分叉病变和853例LM分叉病变的预后影响。主要结局是靶病变失败(TLF),定义为心源性死亡,心肌梗塞(MI)和靶病变血运重建的复合物。结果:LM分叉组比非LM分叉组更频繁地使用2-支架策略(40.3%vs. 20.8%,p <0.01)。在中位随访期36个月中,采用2支架策略与更高的心源性死亡发生率无关(危险比[HR]:1.24; 95%置信区间[CI]:0.72至2.14; p = 0.44) ,非LM分叉组的心源性死亡或MI(HR:1.12; 95%CI:0.58至2.19; p = 0.73)或TLF(HR:1.39; 95%CI:0.99至1.94; p = 0.06)。相比之下,在患有LM分叉病变的患者中,采用2支架策略与更高的心源性死亡发生率(HR:2.43; 95%CI:1.05至5.59; p = 0.04),心源性死亡或MI(HR:2.09) ; 95%CI:1.08至4.04; p = 0.03)以及TLF(HR:2.38; 95%CI:1.60至3.55; p <0.01)。 TLF的治疗策略和分叉病变位置之间存在显着相互作用(p = 0.01)。结论:如果可能,应首先考虑采用1支架策略来治疗冠状动脉分叉病变,尤其是LM分叉病变。 (韩国冠状动脉分叉支架[COBIS]注册中心II; NCT01642992)

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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