药物洗脱支架治疗左主干病变的疗效评价

冠脉搭桥术曾经被认为是左主干病变治疗的“金标准”,近年来经皮冠脉介入治疗也在该领域取得一些进展,一系列临床试验证实药物洗脱支架治疗左主干病变安全可行,但在左主干远端分叉病变还存在再狭窄率高的问题。就目前而言,对于有选择的左主干病变,药物洗脱支架是一种充满生机的治疗方法。     

无保护左主干病变的药物洗脱支架与冠脉搭桥治疗

无保护左主干病变一直是冠脉搭桥治疗的传统领地。随着经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的迅速发展,尤其是药物洗脱支架广泛应用以来,学者们正在用大量的试验证明应用药物洗脱支架治疗无保护左主干病变的安全性、可行性,比较与冠脉搭桥治疗孰优孰劣。随着技术的发展和器械的更新,药物洗脱支架介入治疗的适应证势必进一步拓宽,但是就目前而言,无保护左主干的介入治疗由于其自身不足,不能完全替代冠脉搭桥治疗。     

无保护左主干分叉病变研究进展

随着经皮冠状动脉介入技术的迅速发展,应用药物洗脱支架治疗无保护左主干病变的安全性和有效性已得到临床证实.而无保护左主干分叉病变具有与非左主干分叉病变不同的特征.理解无保护左主干分叉病变的分型、局部解剖特点,熟练掌握无保护左主干分叉病变手术方式具有重要意义.     

Left Main Coronary Artery Thrombus: A Case Series with Different Outcomes

Left main coronary artery (LMCA) thrombosis with acute myocardial infarction is an uncommon condition with an extremely high mortality. The small number of reported cases prevents the development of an evidence-based approach. Hence there are no clear-cut guidelines describing the best management approach for this condition. We describe our experience with six patients who presented with LMCA thrombosis and discuss the epidemiology, etiology and management options available for this high-risk subgroup.     

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Optimal Stent Strategy in Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Stenting

Objectives

This study sought to investigate the long-term clinical effects of stent generation and stent strategy for left main coronary artery (LMCA) bifurcation lesion treatment.

药物洗脱支架年代无保护左主干病变血运重建策略的选择

冠状动脉旁路移植术一直被认为是治疗无保护左主干病变的金标准.近年来,由于经皮冠状动脉介入治疗技术及器械的迅速发展,特别是药物洗脱支架的广泛应用,使冠状动脉介入治疗术后由再狭窄导致的再次靶病变血运重建率明显降低,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗无保护左主干病变研究以及和冠状动脉旁路移植术疗效对比研究越来越多,并且显示药物洗脱支架对无保护左主干病变有良好的疗效,其安全性与冠状动脉旁路移植术相似,甚至在某些方面具有优势.现就近年来冠状动脉旁路移植术和冠状动脉介入治疗无保护左主干病变的研究进展做一综述,探讨在药物洗脱支架年代无保护左主干病变治疗策略的选择.     

Simultaneous kissing stent technique to treat left main stem bifurcation disease.

BACKGROUND: While several endovascular techniques have been developed for treating arterial bifurcation lesions, there is, as yet, no single, widely accepted technique for treating left main stem (LMS) bifurcation lesions with stents. The simultaneous kissing stent (SCS) technique seems particularly suited for such lesions. The authors describe a consecutive cohort of patients with LMS bifurcation stenosis treated with this technique and present mechanistic insights from a porcine model. METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with LMS bifurcation stenosis +/- multivessel disease were treated with SCS technique using paclitaxel-eluting stents. The technique involves simultaneous implantation of two stents (LMS-LAD and LMS-Cx) so that the proximal end of both stents lie at the same level in the body of LMS. Symptom status was recorded and follow-up angiography was performed. In addition, four pigs underwent SCS implantation of the LMS and were studied by direct examination, histology, and scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 63, 26 were elective and 19 were male. Paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus, Boston Scientific) were used. There was one in-hospital death in a highly unstable patient. At 6-month follow-up angiography, two patients required target lesion revascularization. At 13 +/- 3 month follow-up, the remaining patients remain well, with no other major adverse cardiac events. The animals all survived with patent stents. SEM demonstrated full re-endothelialization and histology showed a thin but complete neointima covering the stent struts. CONCLUSION: The SCS technique for treating LMS bifurcation disease with paclitaxel-eluting stents is safe and feasible. Medium term clinical and angiographic results are good. An endothelium and a thin neointima cover the metal struts.     

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration Determines Outcome After 2- But Not 1-Stent Strategy in Left Main Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes after left main coronary artery (LM) bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the impact of the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) according to treatment strategy.

3-Year Outcomes of the DKCRUSH-V Trial Comparing DK Crush With Provisional Stenting for Left Main Bifurcation Lesions

ObjectivesThe present study aimed to investigate the difference in target lesion failure (TLF) at 3 years after double kissing (DK) crush stenting versus provisional stenting (PS) for unprotected left main distal bifurcation (UPLMb) lesions.BackgroundThe multicenter and randomized DKCRUSH-V (Double Kissing Crush versus Provisional Stenting for Left Main Distal Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-V Randomized Trial) study showed fewer 1-year TLF after DK crush for UPLMb lesions compared with PS. The study reports the 3-year clinical outcome of the DKCRUSH-V study.MethodsA total of 482 patients with UPLMb lesions who were randomly assigned to either the DK crush group (DK group) or PS group in the DKCRUSH-V study were followed for 3 years. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a TLF at 3 years. Stent thrombosis (ST) was the safety endpoint. Patients were classified by lesion’s complexity and NERS (New Risk Stratification) II or SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) score.ResultsAt 3 years, TLF occurred in 41 (16.9%) patients in the PS group and in 20 (8.3%) patients in the DK group (p = 0.005), mainly driven by increased target vessel myocardial infarction (5.8% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.017) and target lesion revascularization (10.3% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.029). Definite or probable ST rate at 3 years was 4.1% in the PS group and 0.4% in the DK group (p = 0.006). Notably, DK crush was associated with a significant reduction in both primary and secondary endpoints for patients with complex lesions or at high risk.ConclusionsProvisional stenting for UPLMb lesions was associated with significantly increased rates of TLF and ST over 3 years of follow-up. Further randomized study is warranted to confirm the benefits of DK crush stenting for complex UPLMb lesions. (Double Kissing and Double Crush versus Provisional T Stenting Technique for the Treatment of Unprotected Distal Left Main True Bifurcation Lesions: A Randomized, International, Multi-center Clinical Trial; ChiCTR-TRC-11001213).