[对未受保护的左冠状动脉主干进行经皮介入治疗的临床结果]。

Edgar Uriel Quintana-Ortiz, Germán Ramón Bautista-López, Enrique Alfredo Bernal-Ruiz, Marco Alejandro Solórzano-Vázquez, Martha Alicia Hernández-Gonzále, Sergio Eduardo Solorio-Meza
{"title":"[对未受保护的左冠状动脉主干进行经皮介入治疗的临床结果]。","authors":"Edgar Uriel Quintana-Ortiz, Germán Ramón Bautista-López, Enrique Alfredo Bernal-Ruiz, Marco Alejandro Solórzano-Vázquez, Martha Alicia Hernández-Gonzále, Sergio Eduardo Solorio-Meza","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.10278143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The debate on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) has been constant over time.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the clinical and procedural characteristics and cardiovascular outcomes of PCI of unprotected LMCA.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Observational study which included patients with unprotected LMCA disease undergoing PCI; patients with cardiogenic shock prior to the procedure were excluded. We describe the clinical and angiographic characteristics, as well as the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) according to the year of the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 73 patients, with a SYNTAX I score of 31.2 ± 9.1, mostly with ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (35%). There was a higher frequency of triple vessel coronary disease (63%) and distal LMCA lesions (35%). The provisional stent technique was the most used for distal lesions (58%) and the 2-stent technique for bifurcation lesions (78%), supported by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in 38%. During follow-up, 19 presented MACCE (26%), out of which cardiac death occurred in 13%, non-cardiovascular death in 5%, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction in 1%, cerebrovascular event in 2%, and revascularization of the treated vessel in 4%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It was observed a similar frequency to the one appearing in other studies of cardiovascular events, mainly in patients with intermediate risk, which supports the increasing use of percutaneous intervention in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":94200,"journal":{"name":"Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Clinical outcomes of percutaneous intervention on the unprotected left main coronary artery].\",\"authors\":\"Edgar Uriel Quintana-Ortiz, Germán Ramón Bautista-López, Enrique Alfredo Bernal-Ruiz, Marco Alejandro Solórzano-Vázquez, Martha Alicia Hernández-Gonzále, Sergio Eduardo Solorio-Meza\",\"doi\":\"10.5281/zenodo.10278143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The debate on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) has been constant over time.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the clinical and procedural characteristics and cardiovascular outcomes of PCI of unprotected LMCA.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Observational study which included patients with unprotected LMCA disease undergoing PCI; patients with cardiogenic shock prior to the procedure were excluded. We describe the clinical and angiographic characteristics, as well as the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) according to the year of the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 73 patients, with a SYNTAX I score of 31.2 ± 9.1, mostly with ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (35%). There was a higher frequency of triple vessel coronary disease (63%) and distal LMCA lesions (35%). The provisional stent technique was the most used for distal lesions (58%) and the 2-stent technique for bifurcation lesions (78%), supported by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in 38%. During follow-up, 19 presented MACCE (26%), out of which cardiac death occurred in 13%, non-cardiovascular death in 5%, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction in 1%, cerebrovascular event in 2%, and revascularization of the treated vessel in 4%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It was observed a similar frequency to the one appearing in other studies of cardiovascular events, mainly in patients with intermediate risk, which supports the increasing use of percutaneous intervention in this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94200,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10278143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10278143","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:关于无保护左冠状动脉主干(LMCA)经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的争论一直没有停止过:材料与方法:观察性研究纳入了未受保护的左主干冠状动脉(LMCA)患者:观察性研究,包括接受PCI治疗的未受保护的LMCA患者;排除术前患有心源性休克的患者。我们根据手术年份描述了临床和血管造影特征以及主要心脑血管不良事件(MACCE):我们纳入了73名患者,SYNTAX I评分为31.2±9.1分,大部分患者患有ST段抬高型急性冠脉综合征(35%)。三血管冠状动脉疾病(63%)和远端 LMCA 病变(35%)的发生率较高。远端病变多采用临时支架技术(58%),分叉病变多采用双支架技术(78%),38%的病变得到血管内超声(IVUS)的支持。随访期间,有19例患者出现MACCE(26%),其中13%的患者出现心源性死亡,5%的患者出现非心血管死亡,1%的患者出现非致命性急性心肌梗死,2%的患者出现脑血管事件,4%的患者接受了血管再通治疗:据观察,心血管事件发生的频率与其他研究中出现的频率相似,主要发生在中危患者中,这支持了经皮介入治疗在这一人群中的应用越来越广泛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Clinical outcomes of percutaneous intervention on the unprotected left main coronary artery].

Background: The debate on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) has been constant over time.

Objective: To investigate the clinical and procedural characteristics and cardiovascular outcomes of PCI of unprotected LMCA.

Material and methods: Observational study which included patients with unprotected LMCA disease undergoing PCI; patients with cardiogenic shock prior to the procedure were excluded. We describe the clinical and angiographic characteristics, as well as the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) according to the year of the procedure.

Results: We included 73 patients, with a SYNTAX I score of 31.2 ± 9.1, mostly with ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (35%). There was a higher frequency of triple vessel coronary disease (63%) and distal LMCA lesions (35%). The provisional stent technique was the most used for distal lesions (58%) and the 2-stent technique for bifurcation lesions (78%), supported by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in 38%. During follow-up, 19 presented MACCE (26%), out of which cardiac death occurred in 13%, non-cardiovascular death in 5%, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction in 1%, cerebrovascular event in 2%, and revascularization of the treated vessel in 4%.

Conclusions: It was observed a similar frequency to the one appearing in other studies of cardiovascular events, mainly in patients with intermediate risk, which supports the increasing use of percutaneous intervention in this population.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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