{"title":"Clinical and procedural outcomes of ostial left anterior descending artery intervention with or without crossover to left-main.","authors":"Mohamed Sayed, Yasutsugu Shiono, Doaa A Fouad, Ahmed Abdel-Galeel, Rikuya Tanaka, Shin Murakami, Satoshi Hata, Keisuke Yamamoto, Keiya Komatsu, Yuta Takano, Yoshinori Asae, Hiroki Emori, Akira Taruya, Masahiro Takahata, Teruaki Wada, Shingo Ota, Yuichi Ozaki, Manabu Kashiwagi, Akio Kuroi, Takashi Yamano, Hironori Kitabata, Atsushi Tanaka, Aly Tohamy","doi":"10.1186/s43044-026-00777-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It remains debated whether just ostial stenting (JOS) or crossover stenting (COS) is optimal for isolated ostial lesions of the left anterior descending (LAD) artery, and available comparative data on intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains limited. We aim to compare clinical outcomes between the strategies and identify determinants of strategy selection.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>This retrospective study included 172 patients with isolated ostial LAD lesions who underwent IVI-guided PCI with either JOS (n = 112) or COS (n = 60) between 2018 and 2025. The primary endpoint was two-year major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any revascularization. MACE rates did not differ significantly in both strategies (23% vs.17%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-1.49; P = 0.40). LAD diameter on angiography (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% CI 1.03-4.05, P = 0.040) and LAD proximal reference area measured by IVI (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.55, P = 0.033) were independently associated with selecting JOS over COS. Optimal minimum stent areas (MSA) were achieved in most cases in both groups (89% vs. 98%, P = 0.032).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Under IVI-guided PCI, clinical outcomes showed no significant difference between JOS and COS, and LAD anatomy determined the strategy. These findings support individualized, anatomy-driven technique selection and IVI-guided procedural optimization for ostial LAD lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":74993,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13572354/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-026-00777-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: It remains debated whether just ostial stenting (JOS) or crossover stenting (COS) is optimal for isolated ostial lesions of the left anterior descending (LAD) artery, and available comparative data on intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains limited. We aim to compare clinical outcomes between the strategies and identify determinants of strategy selection.
Methods and results: This retrospective study included 172 patients with isolated ostial LAD lesions who underwent IVI-guided PCI with either JOS (n = 112) or COS (n = 60) between 2018 and 2025. The primary endpoint was two-year major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any revascularization. MACE rates did not differ significantly in both strategies (23% vs.17%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-1.49; P = 0.40). LAD diameter on angiography (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% CI 1.03-4.05, P = 0.040) and LAD proximal reference area measured by IVI (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.55, P = 0.033) were independently associated with selecting JOS over COS. Optimal minimum stent areas (MSA) were achieved in most cases in both groups (89% vs. 98%, P = 0.032).
Conclusions: Under IVI-guided PCI, clinical outcomes showed no significant difference between JOS and COS, and LAD anatomy determined the strategy. These findings support individualized, anatomy-driven technique selection and IVI-guided procedural optimization for ostial LAD lesions.
背景:对于孤立的左前降支(LAD)动脉口病变,单纯口内支架置入(JOS)还是交叉支架置入(COS)是最佳选择,目前仍存在争议,并且血管内成像(IVI)引导的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的可用比较数据仍然有限。我们的目的是比较不同策略的临床结果,并确定策略选择的决定因素。方法和结果:本回顾性研究纳入了172例孤立性口侧LAD病变患者,这些患者在2018年至2025年期间接受了ivi引导的PCI治疗,伴有JOS (n = 112)或COS (n = 60)。主要终点是2年主要不良心脏事件(mace),定义为全因死亡率、心肌梗死和任何血运重建术。两种策略的MACE率无显著差异(23% vs.17%;校正风险比:0.74;95%可信区间[CI]: 0.37-1.49; P = 0.40)。血管造影的LAD直径(比值比[OR] 2.04, 95% CI 1.03-4.05, P = 0.040)和IVI测量的LAD近端参考面积(比值比[OR] 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.55, P = 0.033)与选择JOS而不是COS独立相关。两组大多数病例均达到最佳最小支架面积(MSA) (89% vs. 98%, P = 0.032)。结论:在ivi引导下,JOS和COS的临床结果无显著差异,LAD解剖决定了策略。这些发现支持个体化,解剖驱动的技术选择和ivi引导下的口腔LAD病变的手术优化。