4.7 Article

Longest available clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease - The DELFT (Drug Eluting stent for LeFT main) registry

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 51, 期 23, 页码 2212-2219

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.03.020

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. Background Long-term clinical outcomes after DES implantation for ULMCA disease have not yet been ascertained. Methods From April 2002 to April 2004, 358 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA were retrospectively selected and analyzed in 7 European and U. S. tertiary care centers. No patients were excluded from the analysis, and all patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Results Technical success rate was 100%. Procedural success rate was 89.6%. After 3 years, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival in the whole population was 73.5%. According to the Academic Research Consortium definitions, cardiac death occurred in 9.2% of patients, and reinfarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) occurred in 8.6%, 5.8%, and 14.2% of patients, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (specifically at 0 and 439 days). In elective patients, the 3-year MACE-free survival was 74.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 6.2%, 8.3%, 6.6%, and 16%, respectively. In the emergent group the 3-year MACE-free survival was 68.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 21.4%, 10%, 2.8%, and 7.1%, respectively. Conclusions Routine DES implantation in ULMCA disease seems encouraging, with favorable long-term clinical results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据