Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization

Q4 Medicine
A. Almoghairi, Nayef Al-Asiri, K. Aljohani, Ayman Alsaleh, Nasser G Alqahtani, M. Alasmary, Rudaynah A Alali, Khaled Tamam, M. Alasnag
{"title":"Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization","authors":"A. Almoghairi, Nayef Al-Asiri, K. Aljohani, Ayman Alsaleh, Nasser G Alqahtani, M. Alasmary, Rudaynah A Alali, Khaled Tamam, M. Alasnag","doi":"10.15420/usc.2022.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Left main (LM) coronary artery disease accounts for approximately 4–6% of all percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). There has been mounting evidence indicating the non-inferiority of LM PCI as a revascularization option, particularly for those with a low SYNTAX score. The EXCEL and NOBEL trials have shaped current guidelines. The European Society of Cardiology assigned a class 2a level of evidence B for isolated LM disease involving the shaft and ostium and a class IIb level of evidence B for isolated LM disease involving the bifurcation or additional two- or three-vessel disease and a SYNTAX score <32. However, data on the use of a single stent or an upfront two-stent strategy for distal LM disease are conflicting, wherein the EBC Main trial reported similar outcomes with a stepwise provisional approach and the DKCRUSH-V trial reported better outcomes with an upfront two-stent strategy using the ‘double-kissing’ crush technique. Although several studies have noted better immediate results with image-guided PCI, there are few data on outcomes in LM disease specifically. In fact, the uptake of imaging in the aforementioned landmark trials was only 40%. More importantly, the role of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been less well studied in LM PCI. Indiscriminate use of MCS for LM PCI has been noted in clinical practice. Trials evaluating the benefit of MCS in high-risk PCI demonstrated no benefit. This review highlights contemporary trials as they apply to current practice in LM PCI.","PeriodicalId":37809,"journal":{"name":"US Cardiology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"US Cardiology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15420/usc.2022.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Left main (LM) coronary artery disease accounts for approximately 4–6% of all percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). There has been mounting evidence indicating the non-inferiority of LM PCI as a revascularization option, particularly for those with a low SYNTAX score. The EXCEL and NOBEL trials have shaped current guidelines. The European Society of Cardiology assigned a class 2a level of evidence B for isolated LM disease involving the shaft and ostium and a class IIb level of evidence B for isolated LM disease involving the bifurcation or additional two- or three-vessel disease and a SYNTAX score <32. However, data on the use of a single stent or an upfront two-stent strategy for distal LM disease are conflicting, wherein the EBC Main trial reported similar outcomes with a stepwise provisional approach and the DKCRUSH-V trial reported better outcomes with an upfront two-stent strategy using the ‘double-kissing’ crush technique. Although several studies have noted better immediate results with image-guided PCI, there are few data on outcomes in LM disease specifically. In fact, the uptake of imaging in the aforementioned landmark trials was only 40%. More importantly, the role of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been less well studied in LM PCI. Indiscriminate use of MCS for LM PCI has been noted in clinical practice. Trials evaluating the benefit of MCS in high-risk PCI demonstrated no benefit. This review highlights contemporary trials as they apply to current practice in LM PCI.
左主干经皮冠状动脉血管重建术
左主干(LM)冠状动脉疾病约占所有经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的4-6%。越来越多的证据表明,LM PCI作为一种血运重建选择是非劣效的,尤其是对于SYNTAX评分低的患者。EXCEL和NOBEL的试验已经形成了目前的指导方针。欧洲心脏病学学会为涉及轴和口的孤立性LM疾病指定了2a级证据B,为涉及分叉或其他两血管或三血管疾病的孤立性LM疾病指定了IIb级证据B和SYNTAX评分<32。然而,关于使用单支架或前置双支架策略治疗远端LM疾病的数据是相互矛盾的,其中EBC Main试验报告了采用逐步临时方法的类似结果,而DKCRUSH-V试验报告了使用“双吻”挤压技术的前置双支架策略的更好结果。尽管一些研究已经注意到图像引导PCI有更好的即时效果,但很少有关于LM疾病的具体结果的数据。事实上,在上述具有里程碑意义的试验中,成像的吸收率仅为40%。更重要的是,机械循环支持(MCS)在LM PCI中的作用研究较少。多组分灭菌剂在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的滥用已在临床实践中引起注意。评估MCS在高危PCI中的益处的试验显示没有益处。这篇综述强调了当代试验,因为它们适用于LM PCI的当前实践。
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
US Cardiology Review
US Cardiology Review Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: US Cardiology Review (USC) is an international, US-English language, peer-reviewed journal that is published bi-annually and aims to assist time-pressured physicians to stay abreast of key advances and opinion in the area of cardiovascular disease. The journal comprises balanced and comprehensive review articles written by leading authorities. The journal provides updates on a range of salient issues to support physicians in developing their knowledge and effectiveness in day-to-day clinical practice. The journal endeavours to support the continuous medical education of specialist and general cardiologists and disseminate knowledge of the field to the wider cardiovascular community.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信