Ostial vs Left Main Crossover Stenting in Isolated Ostial Left Anterior Descending Stenosis: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

William E. Camilleri MD, Eleni Ntantou MD, Alexandr Valentijn Kloosterman, Joost Daemen MD, PhD, Jeroen Wilschut MD, Isabella Kardys MD, PhD, Rutger Jan Nuis MD, PhD, Roberto Diletti MD, PhD, Karim Mahmoud MD, PhD, Nicolas M. Van Mieghem MD, PhD, Wijnand K. Den Dekker MD, PhD
{"title":"Ostial vs Left Main Crossover Stenting in Isolated Ostial Left Anterior Descending Stenosis: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study","authors":"William E. Camilleri MD,&nbsp;Eleni Ntantou MD,&nbsp;Alexandr Valentijn Kloosterman,&nbsp;Joost Daemen MD, PhD,&nbsp;Jeroen Wilschut MD,&nbsp;Isabella Kardys MD, PhD,&nbsp;Rutger Jan Nuis MD, PhD,&nbsp;Roberto Diletti MD, PhD,&nbsp;Karim Mahmoud MD, PhD,&nbsp;Nicolas M. Van Mieghem MD, PhD,&nbsp;Wijnand K. Den Dekker MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jscai.2026.105526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Limited data exist on the optimal stenting strategy for isolated ostial left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) lesions. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes in patients who had a significant isolated ostial LAD stenosis treated with either left main crossover stenting (LMCS) or focal ostial LAD stenting (FO-LAD).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The primary end point of the study was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, and cardiac death at 2 years. Secondary end points included the individual components of the primary outcome. Additional secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events, which are a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and any unplanned revascularization.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 522 patients were included in this study, of whom 382 underwent FO-LAD stenting and 140 underwent LMCS. The primary outcome occurred in 32 patients (22.9%) in the LMCS and in 44 patients (11.5%) in the FO-LAD group at a median follow-up of 730 days (IQR, 451-730). LMCS was associated with a higher risk of TLF compared with FO-LAD stenting (adjusted HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.16-2.98; <em>P</em> = .01).</div><div>With regard to secondary outcomes, LMCS was associated with more major adverse cardiovascular events (31.4% vs 15.5%; adjusted HR, 2.11 [1.41-3.17]; <em>P</em> &lt; .001) and cardiac death (17.1% vs 7.9%; adjusted HR, 2.05 [1.19-3.55]; <em>P</em> = .01]. No significant differences were observed for target lesion revascularization and target vessel myocardial infarction.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Left main crossover stenting was associated with a higher rate of TLF at a median follow-up of 2 years when compared with FO-LAD stenting in the treatment of patients with significant isolated ostial LAD disease.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73990,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions","volume":"5 10","pages":"Article 105526"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772930326012731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Limited data exist on the optimal stenting strategy for isolated ostial left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) lesions. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes in patients who had a significant isolated ostial LAD stenosis treated with either left main crossover stenting (LMCS) or focal ostial LAD stenting (FO-LAD).

Methods

The primary end point of the study was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, and cardiac death at 2 years. Secondary end points included the individual components of the primary outcome. Additional secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events, which are a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and any unplanned revascularization.

Results

A total of 522 patients were included in this study, of whom 382 underwent FO-LAD stenting and 140 underwent LMCS. The primary outcome occurred in 32 patients (22.9%) in the LMCS and in 44 patients (11.5%) in the FO-LAD group at a median follow-up of 730 days (IQR, 451-730). LMCS was associated with a higher risk of TLF compared with FO-LAD stenting (adjusted HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.16-2.98; P = .01).
With regard to secondary outcomes, LMCS was associated with more major adverse cardiovascular events (31.4% vs 15.5%; adjusted HR, 2.11 [1.41-3.17]; P < .001) and cardiac death (17.1% vs 7.9%; adjusted HR, 2.05 [1.19-3.55]; P = .01]. No significant differences were observed for target lesion revascularization and target vessel myocardial infarction.

Conclusions

Left main crossover stenting was associated with a higher rate of TLF at a median follow-up of 2 years when compared with FO-LAD stenting in the treatment of patients with significant isolated ostial LAD disease.
单中心回顾性队列研究:孤立性左前降狭窄的口与左主干交叉支架置入
背景:关于孤立的开口左前降支冠状动脉(LAD)病变的最佳支架术的数据有限。本研究的目的是比较左主干交叉支架术(LMCS)和局灶性食管LAD支架术(FO-LAD)治疗严重孤立性食管LAD狭窄患者的结果。方法研究的主要终点是靶病变衰竭(TLF),即靶病变血运重建、靶血管心肌梗死和2年心脏性死亡的综合结果。次要终点包括主要结局的各个组成部分。其他次要结局包括主要不良心血管事件,包括全因死亡率、心肌梗死、脑血管意外和任何计划外的血运重建术。结果共纳入522例患者,其中FO-LAD支架置入382例,LMCS置入140例。中位随访时间为730天(IQR, 451-730), LMCS组32例患者(22.9%)和FO-LAD组44例患者(11.5%)出现主要结局。与FO-LAD支架植入术相比,LMCS与TLF的风险较高相关(调整后风险比1.86;95% CI, 1.16-2.98; P = 0.01)。在次要结局方面,LMCS与更多的主要不良心血管事件(31.4% vs 15.5%;校正HR, 2.11 [1.41-3.17]; P < 0.001)和心源性死亡(17.1% vs 7.9%;校正HR, 2.05 [1.19-3.55]; P = 0.01)相关。靶病变血运重建与靶血管心肌梗死无显著性差异。结论:与左主干交叉支架术相比,左主干交叉支架术在治疗严重孤立性口侧LAD疾病患者时,中位随访2年的TLF发生率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
48 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书