Chen-Wei Huang, Mu-Shiang Huang, Pei-Fang Su, Ting-Hsing Chao, Cheng-Han Lee, Ping-Yen Liu
{"title":"冠状动脉左主干病变支架置入术后再狭窄的处理。","authors":"Chen-Wei Huang, Mu-Shiang Huang, Pei-Fang Su, Ting-Hsing Chao, Cheng-Han Lee, Ping-Yen Liu","doi":"10.6515/ACS.202303_39(2).20220821A","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal alternative treatment strategy to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) in left main (LM) coronary artery disease remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively screened all intervention reports from an intervention database and extracted those mentioning an LM stent. We then manually confirmed reports involving LM ISR and divided them into two groups, those in which the patient received a new drug-eluting stent (new-DES) strategy, and those in which the patient received a drug-coated balloon (DCB) only. A composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and each individual endpoint were compared. We also performed a brief analysis of similar designed studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between the new-DES (n = 40) and DCB-only (n = 22) groups, during median respective follow-up times of 581.5 and 642.5 days, no significant statistical differences were detected in MACEs (50.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.974), cardiovascular death (27.5% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.214), nonfatal myocardial infarction (30.0% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.835), or target lesion revascularization (35.0% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.542). We analyzed four similar studies and found comparable MACE findings (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings support both DCB angioplasty and repeat DES implantation for LMISR lesions in patients who were clinically judged to be unsuitable for CABG; the treatments achieved comparable clinical results in terms of MACEs in the medium term.</p>","PeriodicalId":6957,"journal":{"name":"Acta Cardiologica Sinica","volume":"39 2","pages":"277-286"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9999179/pdf/acs-39-277.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management of Restenosis after Stenting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.\",\"authors\":\"Chen-Wei Huang, Mu-Shiang Huang, Pei-Fang Su, Ting-Hsing Chao, Cheng-Han Lee, Ping-Yen Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.6515/ACS.202303_39(2).20220821A\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal alternative treatment strategy to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) in left main (LM) coronary artery disease remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively screened all intervention reports from an intervention database and extracted those mentioning an LM stent. We then manually confirmed reports involving LM ISR and divided them into two groups, those in which the patient received a new drug-eluting stent (new-DES) strategy, and those in which the patient received a drug-coated balloon (DCB) only. A composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and each individual endpoint were compared. We also performed a brief analysis of similar designed studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between the new-DES (n = 40) and DCB-only (n = 22) groups, during median respective follow-up times of 581.5 and 642.5 days, no significant statistical differences were detected in MACEs (50.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.974), cardiovascular death (27.5% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.214), nonfatal myocardial infarction (30.0% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.835), or target lesion revascularization (35.0% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.542). We analyzed four similar studies and found comparable MACE findings (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings support both DCB angioplasty and repeat DES implantation for LMISR lesions in patients who were clinically judged to be unsuitable for CABG; the treatments achieved comparable clinical results in terms of MACEs in the medium term.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Cardiologica Sinica\",\"volume\":\"39 2\",\"pages\":\"277-286\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9999179/pdf/acs-39-277.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Cardiologica Sinica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6515/ACS.202303_39(2).20220821A\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Cardiologica Sinica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6515/ACS.202303_39(2).20220821A","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Management of Restenosis after Stenting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.
Background: The optimal alternative treatment strategy to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) in left main (LM) coronary artery disease remains uncertain.
Methods: We retrospectively screened all intervention reports from an intervention database and extracted those mentioning an LM stent. We then manually confirmed reports involving LM ISR and divided them into two groups, those in which the patient received a new drug-eluting stent (new-DES) strategy, and those in which the patient received a drug-coated balloon (DCB) only. A composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and each individual endpoint were compared. We also performed a brief analysis of similar designed studies.
Results: Between the new-DES (n = 40) and DCB-only (n = 22) groups, during median respective follow-up times of 581.5 and 642.5 days, no significant statistical differences were detected in MACEs (50.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.974), cardiovascular death (27.5% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.214), nonfatal myocardial infarction (30.0% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.835), or target lesion revascularization (35.0% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.542). We analyzed four similar studies and found comparable MACE findings (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67).
Conclusions: Our findings support both DCB angioplasty and repeat DES implantation for LMISR lesions in patients who were clinically judged to be unsuitable for CABG; the treatments achieved comparable clinical results in terms of MACEs in the medium term.
期刊介绍:
Acta Cardiologica Sinica welcomes all the papers in the fields related to cardiovascular medicine including basic research, vascular biology, clinical pharmacology, clinical trial, critical care medicine, coronary artery disease, interventional cardiology, arrythmia and electrophysiology, atherosclerosis, hypertension, cardiomyopathy and heart failure, valvular and structure cardiac disease, pediatric cardiology, cardiovascular surgery, and so on. We received papers from more than 20 countries and areas of the world. Currently, 40% of the papers were submitted to Acta Cardiologica Sinica from Taiwan, 20% from China, and 20% from the other countries and areas in the world. The acceptance rate for publication was around 50% in general.