4.5 Article

Long-term outcomes after drug-eluting stent for the treatment of ostial left anterior descending coronary artery lesions

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 160, 期 5, 页码 973-978

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.07.002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have reduced restenosis in a broad range of lesions, there is limited data, from relatively small studies, on the safety and efficacy of DES for isolated ostial left anterior descending (LAD) stenoses. In addition, in the setting of these high-risk lesions, there is the issue of the potential involvement of the left main (LM) bifurcation, requiring subsequent revascularization for a lesion involving this critical location. Methods Patients with a de novo isolated unprotected ostial LAD stenoses treated with DES were included. Evaluated end points were cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, overall target lesion revascularization (TLR), and the reintervention for a restenotic lesion located at the LM segment adjacent to the stent (TLR-LM). Results A total of 162 patients were included: 95 underwent focal ostial LAD stenting and 67 stenting from the distal LM into the LAD ostium. The 2-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, overall TLR, and TLR-LM were 2.6%, 2.1%, 8.3%, and 4.7%, respectively. Overall TLR and TLR-LM rates were higher in the focal ostial LAD stenting group. There was a trend toward an independent increased risk of TLR associated with focal ostial stenting. In addition, final minimal luminal diameter trended to be independently associated with TLR. Conclusion The present study showed that DES for isolated ostial LAD lesions is a feasible, safe, and effective treatment strategy. In addition, this study suggested the hypothesis that a default distal LM-LAD stenting, rather than focal ostial stenting, might provide more favorable outcomes. Nevertheless, larger specifically designed studies are needed. (Am Heart J 2010; 160: 973-8.)

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

4.5
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