AS-113: Stenting Strategy in Left Main Trunk Disease in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era. Key Role of Single-Stenting with Selected Use of Bare Metal Stents under Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance

2009 ◽  
Vol 103 (9) ◽  
pp. 50B-51B
Author(s):  
Ichiro Hamanaka ◽  
Hiroaki Fujie ◽  
Madoka Ida ◽  
Kinzo Ueda
2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 602-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay B. Pandya ◽  
Young-Hak Kim ◽  
Sheridan N. Meyers ◽  
Charles J. Davidson ◽  
James D. Flaherty ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (21) ◽  
pp. 5093
Author(s):  
Cheng-Chung Cheng ◽  
Fang-Han Yu ◽  
Pi-Shao Ko ◽  
Hsiao-Ting Lin ◽  
Wei-Shiang Lin ◽  
...  

For patients with acute myocardial infarction scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary stent implantation, in most cases a drug-eluting stent is recommended as the first choice for treatment. However, there is a lack of research on the effectiveness of bare-metal stents and drug-eluting stents on patients with different types of myocardial infarction. Our objective was to explore the effects of bare-metal stents and drug-eluting stents on patients with different types of myocardial infarction in terms of major cardiovascular incidents. This retrospective cohort study included 934 patients with myocardial infarction undergoing coronary artery stent implantation for the first time at the cardiac catheter room of the Tri-Service General Hospital in the Neihu District between 2014 and 2018. Patients’ information, including demographic data, laboratory data, cardiac echocardiography results, and angiocardiography results, was collected by reviewing medical records. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to adjust the potential confounding factors, and the adjusted data were then used to compare the correlation between different types of stents and major cardiovascular incidents in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. After the confounding factors were adjusted, in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction receiving a drug-eluting stent compared with those receiving a bare-metal stent, it was found that the mortality risk was lower in terms of all causes of death (Adj-HR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.14–0.48, p < 0.001) and cardiogenic death (Adj-HR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.08–0.55, p = 0.002), the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction was lower (Adj-HR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.04–0.73, p = 0.017), and there was no difference in the risk of revascularization at the lesion site (Adj-HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.24–1.43, p = 0.243). It terms of the findings in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, those receiving a drug-eluting stent had a lower risk of revascularization at the lesion site (Adj-HR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.24–0.97, p = 0.04); however, there was no difference in the mortality risk in terms of all causes of death (Adj-HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.37–1.35, p = 0.296) or cardiogenic death (Adj-HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.18–1.90, p = 0.379),or in the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (Adj-HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.06–1.25, p = 0.093). Compared with bare-metal stents, drug-eluting stents provide better protection against death to receivers with ST-elevation myocardial infarction; however, this protection is decreased in receivers with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. It is recommended that for patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction who are indicated to receive a drug-eluting stent, the clinical effectiveness of the treatment must be considered.


2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (8) ◽  
pp. 805-815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Valgimigli ◽  
Athanasios Patialiakas ◽  
Attila Thury ◽  
Eugene McFadden ◽  
Salvatore Colangelo ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Raffaele Piccolo ◽  
Kaare H. Bonaa ◽  
Orestis Efthimiou ◽  
Olivier Varenne ◽  
Philip Urban ◽  
...  

Background New‐generation drug‐eluting stents (DES) reduce target‐vessel revascularization compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS), and recent data suggest that DES have the potential to decrease the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. We evaluated the treatment effect of DES versus BMS according to the target artery (left anterior descending [LAD] and/or left main [LM] versus other territories [no‐LAD/LM]). Methods and Results The Coronary Stent Trialist (CST) Collaboration gathered individual patient data of randomized trials of DES versus BMS for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were derived from a 1‐stage individual patient data meta‐analysis. We included 26 024 patients across 19 trials: 13 650 (52.4%) in the LAD/LM and 12 373 (47.6%) in the no‐LAD/LM group. At 6‐year follow‐up, there was strong evidence that the treatment effect of DES versus BMS depended on the target vessel ( P ‐interaction=0.024). Compared with BMS, DES reduced the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction to a greater extent in the LAD/LM (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68–0.85) than in the no‐LAD/LM territories (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83–1.05). This benefit was driven by a lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70–0.98) and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65–0.85) in patients with LAD/LM disease randomized to DES. An interaction ( P =0.004) was also found for all‐cause mortality with patients with LAD/LM disease deriving benefit from DES (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76–0.97). Conclusions As compared with BMS, new‐generation DES were associated with sustained reduction in the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction if used for the treatment of LAD or left main coronary stenoses. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO ; Unique identifier: CRD42017060520.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document