Ahmet Güner, Cemalettin Akman, Koray Çiloğlu, Kaan Gökçe, Fatih Uzun, Cemil Can, Serkan Kahraman, Ahmet Yaşar Çizgici, Arda Güler, Gökhan Demirci, Ezgi Gültekin Güner, Mehmet Ertürk
{"title":"Long-Term Evaluation of Revascularization Strategies for Medina 0.1.0 Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: The LM-CROSSOVER Registry.","authors":"Ahmet Güner, Cemalettin Akman, Koray Çiloğlu, Kaan Gökçe, Fatih Uzun, Cemil Can, Serkan Kahraman, Ahmet Yaşar Çizgici, Arda Güler, Gökhan Demirci, Ezgi Gültekin Güner, Mehmet Ertürk","doi":"10.1177/00033197231213194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present study aimed to compare long-term outcomes of patients with Medina 0.1.0 left main (LM) bifurcation lesions treated by crossover stenting (COS) versus accurate ostial stenting (AOS). A total of 229 consecutive eligible patients with Medina 0.1.0 LM bifurcation lesions were enrolled and were stratified according to the stenting techniques. The primary end-point was major cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE), defined as the combination of all-cause death, target vessel related-myocardial infarction (MI), clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), stroke, or stent thrombosis. COS and AOS were applied to 78 (34%) and 151 (66%) patients, respectively. During a mean of 40.6 ± 21.1 months of follow-up, the rate of MACCE (27.8 vs 12.8%; <i>P</i>=.007) was higher in patients treated with AOS than those treated with the COS technique, mainly driven by more frequent all-cause death (13.9 vs 3.8%, <i>P</i> = .013) and TLR (6.4 vs 15.9%; <i>P</i> = .029). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, AOS strategy was one of the independent predictors of MACCE (odds ratio: 2.166; 95% confidence interval, 1.080-4.340; <i>P</i> = .029). The current study suggests that COS was associated with a better long-term MACCE rate and lower all-cause mortality rate than AOS in patients with Medina 0.1.0 LM bifurcation disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":8264,"journal":{"name":"Angiology","volume":" ","pages":"361-369"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00033197231213194","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare long-term outcomes of patients with Medina 0.1.0 left main (LM) bifurcation lesions treated by crossover stenting (COS) versus accurate ostial stenting (AOS). A total of 229 consecutive eligible patients with Medina 0.1.0 LM bifurcation lesions were enrolled and were stratified according to the stenting techniques. The primary end-point was major cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE), defined as the combination of all-cause death, target vessel related-myocardial infarction (MI), clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), stroke, or stent thrombosis. COS and AOS were applied to 78 (34%) and 151 (66%) patients, respectively. During a mean of 40.6 ± 21.1 months of follow-up, the rate of MACCE (27.8 vs 12.8%; P=.007) was higher in patients treated with AOS than those treated with the COS technique, mainly driven by more frequent all-cause death (13.9 vs 3.8%, P = .013) and TLR (6.4 vs 15.9%; P = .029). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, AOS strategy was one of the independent predictors of MACCE (odds ratio: 2.166; 95% confidence interval, 1.080-4.340; P = .029). The current study suggests that COS was associated with a better long-term MACCE rate and lower all-cause mortality rate than AOS in patients with Medina 0.1.0 LM bifurcation disease.
本研究旨在比较Medina 0.1.0左主干(LM)分叉病变患者通过交叉支架植入(COS)和精确口内支架植入(AOS)治疗的长期结果。共有229名Medina 0.1.0 LM分叉病变的连续合格患者入选,并根据支架技术进行分层。主要终点是主要心血管和脑事件(MACCE),定义为全因死亡、靶血管相关心肌梗死(MI)、临床驱动的靶病变血运重建(TLR)、中风或支架血栓形成的组合。COS和AOS分别应用于78例(34%)和151例(66%)患者。在平均40.6±21.1个月的随访中,AOS治疗的患者的MACCE发生率(27.8 vs 12.8%;P=0.007)高于COS技术治疗的患者,主要是由更频繁的全因死亡(13.9 vs 3.8%,P=0.013)和TLR(6.4 vs 15.9%;P=0.029)引起的。在多变量Cox回归分析中,AOS策略是MACCE的独立预测因素之一(优势比:2.166;95%置信区间,1.080-4.340;P=0.029)。目前的研究表明,在Medina 0.1.0 LM分叉疾病患者中,COS与AOS相比,具有更好的长期MACCE率和更低的全因死亡率。
期刊介绍:
A presentation of original, peer-reviewed original articles, review and case reports relative to all phases of all vascular diseases, Angiology (ANG) offers more than a typical cardiology journal. With approximately 1000 pages per year covering diagnostic methods, therapeutic approaches, and clinical and laboratory research, ANG is among the most informative publications in the field of peripheral vascular and cardiovascular diseases. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 13 days