학술논문
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Left Main Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions: Two-stent versus one-stent Strategy for Comparison of 6-month MACE
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Source
Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. September 2020, Vol. 30 Issue 9, p894, 6 p.
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1022-386X
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Bifurcation lesion PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) is considered as the technically most difficult intervention when compared to non-bifurcation PCI, despite novel technological advances and introduction of innovative PCI strategies. [...]
Objective: To assess the short term clinical outcomes for a single-stent (SS) strategy versus a double-stent (DS) strategy in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) lesions. Study Design: Descriptive comparative study. Place and Duration of Study: Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, Rawalpindi, Pakistan from January 2017 to April 2018. Methodology: SS treatment was defined as stenting of the main branch alone and DS treatment as stenting of both the main and side branches. Patients who underwent LMCA PCI were recruited in the study using consecutive sampling. Crossover technique, with or without kissing balloon (KB) dilatation, was employed in those getting PCI with a SS strategy; whereas, DK crush, mini-crush , culotte and T-stenting techniques were used in patients undergoing PCI with a DS strategy. The primary endpoints were a composite of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) i.e. myocardial infarction, stroke or death and target lesion revascularisation (TLR). Results: A total of 103 patients were recruited in the study; out of which, 73 underwent LMCA PCI employing a SS technique; whereas, 30 of them were treated with a DS strategy. Mean age of the study participants was 63.2 [+ or -]10.6 years. The procedural success rate was 100% in both groups. There was a lower frequency of MACE with single-stent strategy (4.1%) versus the double-stent strategy (16.7%, p=0.031) during the 6-month follow-up period. Conclusion: In comparison to the two-stent strategy of ULMCA bifurcation intervention, a single-stent approach seems to show favourable clinical outcomes and 6-month MACE-free survival. The choice of optimal revascularisation technique proves to be important for the prognosis; therefore, it requires pragmatic decision-making. Key Words: PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention), ULMCA (unprotected left main coronary artery), SS (single-stent), DS (double-stent), MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events), CABG (cardiopulmonary bypass grafting), TLR (target lesion revascularisation).
Objective: To assess the short term clinical outcomes for a single-stent (SS) strategy versus a double-stent (DS) strategy in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) lesions. Study Design: Descriptive comparative study. Place and Duration of Study: Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, Rawalpindi, Pakistan from January 2017 to April 2018. Methodology: SS treatment was defined as stenting of the main branch alone and DS treatment as stenting of both the main and side branches. Patients who underwent LMCA PCI were recruited in the study using consecutive sampling. Crossover technique, with or without kissing balloon (KB) dilatation, was employed in those getting PCI with a SS strategy; whereas, DK crush, mini-crush , culotte and T-stenting techniques were used in patients undergoing PCI with a DS strategy. The primary endpoints were a composite of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) i.e. myocardial infarction, stroke or death and target lesion revascularisation (TLR). Results: A total of 103 patients were recruited in the study; out of which, 73 underwent LMCA PCI employing a SS technique; whereas, 30 of them were treated with a DS strategy. Mean age of the study participants was 63.2 [+ or -]10.6 years. The procedural success rate was 100% in both groups. There was a lower frequency of MACE with single-stent strategy (4.1%) versus the double-stent strategy (16.7%, p=0.031) during the 6-month follow-up period. Conclusion: In comparison to the two-stent strategy of ULMCA bifurcation intervention, a single-stent approach seems to show favourable clinical outcomes and 6-month MACE-free survival. The choice of optimal revascularisation technique proves to be important for the prognosis; therefore, it requires pragmatic decision-making. Key Words: PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention), ULMCA (unprotected left main coronary artery), SS (single-stent), DS (double-stent), MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events), CABG (cardiopulmonary bypass grafting), TLR (target lesion revascularisation).