Management of Restenosis after Stenting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Chen-Wei Huang, Mu-Shiang Huang, Pei-Fang Su, Ting-Hsing Chao, Cheng-Han Lee, Ping-Yen Liu
{"title":"Management of Restenosis after Stenting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.","authors":"Chen-Wei Huang,&nbsp;Mu-Shiang Huang,&nbsp;Pei-Fang Su,&nbsp;Ting-Hsing Chao,&nbsp;Cheng-Han Lee,&nbsp;Ping-Yen Liu","doi":"10.6515/ACS.202303_39(2).20220821A","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal alternative treatment strategy to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) in left main (LM) coronary artery disease remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively screened all intervention reports from an intervention database and extracted those mentioning an LM stent. We then manually confirmed reports involving LM ISR and divided them into two groups, those in which the patient received a new drug-eluting stent (new-DES) strategy, and those in which the patient received a drug-coated balloon (DCB) only. A composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and each individual endpoint were compared. We also performed a brief analysis of similar designed studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between the new-DES (n = 40) and DCB-only (n = 22) groups, during median respective follow-up times of 581.5 and 642.5 days, no significant statistical differences were detected in MACEs (50.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.974), cardiovascular death (27.5% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.214), nonfatal myocardial infarction (30.0% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.835), or target lesion revascularization (35.0% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.542). We analyzed four similar studies and found comparable MACE findings (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings support both DCB angioplasty and repeat DES implantation for LMISR lesions in patients who were clinically judged to be unsuitable for CABG; the treatments achieved comparable clinical results in terms of MACEs in the medium term.</p>","PeriodicalId":6957,"journal":{"name":"Acta Cardiologica Sinica","volume":"39 2","pages":"277-286"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9999179/pdf/acs-39-277.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Cardiologica Sinica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6515/ACS.202303_39(2).20220821A","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The optimal alternative treatment strategy to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) in left main (LM) coronary artery disease remains uncertain.

Methods: We retrospectively screened all intervention reports from an intervention database and extracted those mentioning an LM stent. We then manually confirmed reports involving LM ISR and divided them into two groups, those in which the patient received a new drug-eluting stent (new-DES) strategy, and those in which the patient received a drug-coated balloon (DCB) only. A composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and each individual endpoint were compared. We also performed a brief analysis of similar designed studies.

Results: Between the new-DES (n = 40) and DCB-only (n = 22) groups, during median respective follow-up times of 581.5 and 642.5 days, no significant statistical differences were detected in MACEs (50.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.974), cardiovascular death (27.5% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.214), nonfatal myocardial infarction (30.0% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.835), or target lesion revascularization (35.0% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.542). We analyzed four similar studies and found comparable MACE findings (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67).

Conclusions: Our findings support both DCB angioplasty and repeat DES implantation for LMISR lesions in patients who were clinically judged to be unsuitable for CABG; the treatments achieved comparable clinical results in terms of MACEs in the medium term.

冠状动脉左主干病变支架置入术后再狭窄的处理。
背景:对于左主干(LM)冠状动脉疾病支架内再狭窄(ISR),冠状动脉搭桥手术(CABG)的最佳替代治疗策略仍不确定。方法:我们回顾性筛选干预数据库中的所有干预报告,并提取涉及LM支架的报告。然后,我们手工确认涉及LM ISR的报告,并将其分为两组,一组患者接受了新的药物洗脱支架(new- des)策略,另一组患者只接受了药物包被球囊(DCB)。主要心血管不良事件(mace)的复合终点和每个单独的终点进行比较。我们还对类似设计的研究进行了简要分析。结果:在新des组(n = 40)和仅dcb组(n = 22)中位随访时间分别为581.5天和642.5天,mace(50.0%比50.0%,p = 0.974)、心血管死亡(27.5%比13.6%,p = 0.214)、非致死性心肌梗死(30.0%比31.8%,p = 0.835)、靶区血管重建术(35.0%比45.5%,p = 0.542)的差异无统计学意义。我们分析了四项类似的研究,发现了类似的MACE结果(优势比:0.85,95% CI: 0.44-1.67)。结论:我们的研究结果支持对临床判断不适合CABG的LMISR病变患者进行DCB血管成形术和重复DES植入;这些治疗在中期的mace方面取得了相当的临床结果。
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
Acta Cardiologica Sinica
Acta Cardiologica Sinica 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
15.80%
发文量
144
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Cardiologica Sinica welcomes all the papers in the fields related to cardiovascular medicine including basic research, vascular biology, clinical pharmacology, clinical trial, critical care medicine, coronary artery disease, interventional cardiology, arrythmia and electrophysiology, atherosclerosis, hypertension, cardiomyopathy and heart failure, valvular and structure cardiac disease, pediatric cardiology, cardiovascular surgery, and so on. We received papers from more than 20 countries and areas of the world. Currently, 40% of the papers were submitted to Acta Cardiologica Sinica from Taiwan, 20% from China, and 20% from the other countries and areas in the world. The acceptance rate for publication was around 50% in general.
×
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