有或没有与左主干交叉的口左前降支介入治疗后的长期结果。

IF 1.3
Osama Elkhateeb, Sunil Thambi, Hussein Beydoun, Helen Bishop, Ata Quraishi, Bakhtiar Kidwai, Lawrence Title
{"title":"有或没有与左主干交叉的口左前降支介入治疗后的长期结果。","authors":"Osama Elkhateeb,&nbsp;Sunil Thambi,&nbsp;Hussein Beydoun,&nbsp;Helen Bishop,&nbsp;Ata Quraishi,&nbsp;Bakhtiar Kidwai,&nbsp;Lawrence Title","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ostial left anterior descending (LAD) artery lesions are a critical area for coronary stenting, given that the location subtends a large area of the myocardium and can also be more technically challenging. It remains controversial whether crossover stenting of ostial LAD back into the left-main (LM) is advantageous over stenting the ostium alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of stenting ostial LAD lesions, we retrospectively reviewed all ostial LAD lesions cases at QEII Health Science Centre between 2008 and 2018. Specifically, we compared the outcomes in those patients that had left main stent crossover vs. ostial stenting (OS) alone.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total number of patients included in the study was 175, with 25 patients (14%) having a crossover to the LM and 150 (86%) having OS. There were more patients with previous CABG (24%) in the crossover group compared to the OS group (9.2%) (P = 0.042). The one-year MACE was not significantly different between CO vs. OS (13.3% (10.5-16.1) vs. 12% (5.5-18.5)). The five-year MACE was numerically higher, although statistically not significant, in CO vs. OS (19.3 (15.9-22.7) vs. 25.9 (16.6-35.2)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows that percutaneous intervention provides reasonable long-term outcomes and low rates of repeat revascularization for isolated ostial LAD lesions, with no noticeable difference in outcomes with crossover stenting into the LM vs. OS alone. A larger, prospective study may be required to determine the optimal strategy for treating ostial LAD lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":7427,"journal":{"name":"American journal of cardiovascular disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123417/pdf/ajcd0012-0073.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term outcomes following ostial left anterior descending artery intervention with or without crossover to left-main.\",\"authors\":\"Osama Elkhateeb,&nbsp;Sunil Thambi,&nbsp;Hussein Beydoun,&nbsp;Helen Bishop,&nbsp;Ata Quraishi,&nbsp;Bakhtiar Kidwai,&nbsp;Lawrence Title\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ostial left anterior descending (LAD) artery lesions are a critical area for coronary stenting, given that the location subtends a large area of the myocardium and can also be more technically challenging. It remains controversial whether crossover stenting of ostial LAD back into the left-main (LM) is advantageous over stenting the ostium alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of stenting ostial LAD lesions, we retrospectively reviewed all ostial LAD lesions cases at QEII Health Science Centre between 2008 and 2018. Specifically, we compared the outcomes in those patients that had left main stent crossover vs. ostial stenting (OS) alone.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total number of patients included in the study was 175, with 25 patients (14%) having a crossover to the LM and 150 (86%) having OS. There were more patients with previous CABG (24%) in the crossover group compared to the OS group (9.2%) (P = 0.042). The one-year MACE was not significantly different between CO vs. OS (13.3% (10.5-16.1) vs. 12% (5.5-18.5)). The five-year MACE was numerically higher, although statistically not significant, in CO vs. OS (19.3 (15.9-22.7) vs. 25.9 (16.6-35.2)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows that percutaneous intervention provides reasonable long-term outcomes and low rates of repeat revascularization for isolated ostial LAD lesions, with no noticeable difference in outcomes with crossover stenting into the LM vs. OS alone. A larger, prospective study may be required to determine the optimal strategy for treating ostial LAD lesions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of cardiovascular disease\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123417/pdf/ajcd0012-0073.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of cardiovascular disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of cardiovascular disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:开口左前降支(LAD)动脉病变是冠状动脉支架植入术的关键区域,因为该位置靠近大面积心肌,在技术上也更具挑战性。目前仍有争议的是,将口侧LAD交叉支架置入左主干(LM)是否比单独支架置入口侧LAD更有利。方法:为了评估口腔LAD病变支架置入术的长期临床效果,我们回顾性回顾了2008年至2018年QEII健康科学中心所有的口腔LAD病变病例。具体来说,我们比较了左主支架交叉置入与单纯经口支架置入的患者的预后。结果:纳入研究的患者总数为175例,其中25例(14%)患者有LM交叉,150例(86%)患者有OS。交叉组既往CABG患者(24%)多于OS组(9.2%)(P = 0.042)。一年MACE在CO和OS之间无显著差异(13.3% (10.5-16.1)vs 12%(5.5-18.5))。CO与OS的5年MACE (19.3 (15.9-22.7) vs. 25.9(16.6-35.2))在数字上更高,但统计学上不显著。结论:本研究表明,经皮介入治疗孤立性口路LAD病变提供了合理的长期疗效和较低的重复血运重建率,交叉支架置入LM与单独置入OS的结果无显著差异。可能需要更大规模的前瞻性研究来确定治疗口侧LAD病变的最佳策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Long-term outcomes following ostial left anterior descending artery intervention with or without crossover to left-main.

Long-term outcomes following ostial left anterior descending artery intervention with or without crossover to left-main.

Background: Ostial left anterior descending (LAD) artery lesions are a critical area for coronary stenting, given that the location subtends a large area of the myocardium and can also be more technically challenging. It remains controversial whether crossover stenting of ostial LAD back into the left-main (LM) is advantageous over stenting the ostium alone.

Methods: To evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of stenting ostial LAD lesions, we retrospectively reviewed all ostial LAD lesions cases at QEII Health Science Centre between 2008 and 2018. Specifically, we compared the outcomes in those patients that had left main stent crossover vs. ostial stenting (OS) alone.

Results: The total number of patients included in the study was 175, with 25 patients (14%) having a crossover to the LM and 150 (86%) having OS. There were more patients with previous CABG (24%) in the crossover group compared to the OS group (9.2%) (P = 0.042). The one-year MACE was not significantly different between CO vs. OS (13.3% (10.5-16.1) vs. 12% (5.5-18.5)). The five-year MACE was numerically higher, although statistically not significant, in CO vs. OS (19.3 (15.9-22.7) vs. 25.9 (16.6-35.2)).

Conclusion: This study shows that percutaneous intervention provides reasonable long-term outcomes and low rates of repeat revascularization for isolated ostial LAD lesions, with no noticeable difference in outcomes with crossover stenting into the LM vs. OS alone. A larger, prospective study may be required to determine the optimal strategy for treating ostial LAD lesions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of cardiovascular disease
American journal of cardiovascular disease CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
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