Intracoronary Electrocardiography-guided Strategy for the Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.15212/cvia.2023.0055
Dobrin Vassilev, Niya Mileva, Panayot Panayotov, Krasimir Kostov, Kenan Yumerov, Nikolay Petkov, Carlos Collet, Gianluca Rigatelli, Robert J. Gil, Thach Nguyen
{"title":"Intracoronary Electrocardiography-guided Strategy for the Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions","authors":"Dobrin Vassilev, Niya Mileva, Panayot Panayotov, Krasimir Kostov, Kenan Yumerov, Nikolay Petkov, Carlos Collet, Gianluca Rigatelli, Robert J. Gil, Thach Nguyen","doi":"10.15212/cvia.2023.0055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Revascularization of bifurcation lesions remains an interventional challenge. Intracoronary electrocardiograms can predict the functional significance of side branch stenosis after bifurcation stenting. Aim: This study was aimed at evaluating the effects of an intracoronary ECG electrocardiography (icECG)-guided revascularization strategy, compared with the currently accepted standard of care, on the clinical outcomes of patients after coronary bifurcation stenting. Methods: Patients with coronary bifurcation lesions who underwent percutaneous revascularization were enrolled in a prospective all-comers’ registry. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients who underwent icECG-guided revascularization versus the current standard of care (SOC), provisional stenting. Results: A total of 768 patients were included in the analysis: 349 were treated with an icECG-guided strategy, and 419 received SOC. The overall all-cause death rate was 23.2%, and the cardiovascular death rate was 15.9%. Patients with icECG guidance had significantly lower all-cause mortality (20.3% vs. 25.5% for icECG vs. SOC, log-rank P = 0.006) and cardiovascular mortality (12.6% vs. 18.6% for icECG vs. SOC, log-rank P = 0.004). The decrease in mortality was most pronounced in patients with no increase or a moderate increase in troponin post-PCI, or with higher-than-normal baseline troponin concentrations. Conclusion: An icECG-guided strategy for coronary bifurcation PCI led to lower patient mortality than the provisional stenting strategy.","PeriodicalId":41559,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications","volume":"126 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15212/cvia.2023.0055","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Revascularization of bifurcation lesions remains an interventional challenge. Intracoronary electrocardiograms can predict the functional significance of side branch stenosis after bifurcation stenting. Aim: This study was aimed at evaluating the effects of an intracoronary ECG electrocardiography (icECG)-guided revascularization strategy, compared with the currently accepted standard of care, on the clinical outcomes of patients after coronary bifurcation stenting. Methods: Patients with coronary bifurcation lesions who underwent percutaneous revascularization were enrolled in a prospective all-comers’ registry. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients who underwent icECG-guided revascularization versus the current standard of care (SOC), provisional stenting. Results: A total of 768 patients were included in the analysis: 349 were treated with an icECG-guided strategy, and 419 received SOC. The overall all-cause death rate was 23.2%, and the cardiovascular death rate was 15.9%. Patients with icECG guidance had significantly lower all-cause mortality (20.3% vs. 25.5% for icECG vs. SOC, log-rank P = 0.006) and cardiovascular mortality (12.6% vs. 18.6% for icECG vs. SOC, log-rank P = 0.004). The decrease in mortality was most pronounced in patients with no increase or a moderate increase in troponin post-PCI, or with higher-than-normal baseline troponin concentrations. Conclusion: An icECG-guided strategy for coronary bifurcation PCI led to lower patient mortality than the provisional stenting strategy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
冠状动脉内心电图引导下治疗冠状动脉分叉病变的策略
分支病变的血运重建仍然是一个介入治疗的挑战。冠状动脉内心电图可预测分支支架置入术后侧支狭窄的功能意义。目的:本研究旨在评估冠脉内心电图的影响心电描记法(icECG)引导血管再生策略,与目前接受标准治疗相比,在冠状动脉分叉支架植入后病人的临床结果。方法:接受经皮血管重建术的冠状动脉分叉病变患者纳入前瞻性所有患者登记。临床结果比较了接受icecg引导下的血运重建术与目前的标准护理(SOC)临时支架植入术的患者。结果:共有768例患者纳入分析:349例采用icecg指导策略,419例接受SOC治疗。全因死亡率为23.2%,心血管死亡率为15.9%。在icECG指导下,患者的全因死亡率(icECG vs SOC为20.3%,log-rank P = 0.006)和心血管死亡率(icECG vs SOC为12.6%,log-rank P = 0.004)显著降低。在pci术后肌钙蛋白无升高或中度升高,或肌钙蛋白基线浓度高于正常水平的患者中,死亡率的降低最为明显。结论:icecg引导下冠状动脉分叉PCI的患者死亡率低于临时支架置入策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications
Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
222
期刊最新文献
Mechanisms of Sodium-glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in Heart Failure Incidence, Predictors and Associations Between In-Hospital Bleeding and Adverse Events in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Above 75 Years of Age – The Real-World Scenario Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Maps Immune Cell Heterogeneity in Mice with Allogeneic Cardiac Transplantation Coronavirus Disease 2019, Myocardial Injury, and Myocarditis Predictive Value of a Combination of the Age, Creatinine and Ejection Fraction (ACEF) Score and Fibrinogen Level in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1