Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv ; 90(1): 72-77, 2017 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28707445

RESUMO

Obiectives: Angiographic and clinical outcomes after crushing of everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for distal unprotected left main disease (ULMD). BACKGROUND: Few data exist about crushing of EES for distal ULMD. METHODS: From the Florence ULMD Percutaneous Coronary Interevention Registry consecutive patients with distal ULMD treated with EES were included in the analysis. Patients treated with provisional stenting were compared with patients treated with crush stenting. ENDPOINTS: angiographic in-segment restenosis rate, and 1-year clinical outcome. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2015, 405 patients with distal ULMD were treated with EES: 278 (69%) were treated with provisional stenting while 127 (31%) with crush stenting. Provisional stenting group compared to crush stenting group had higher incidence of acute coronary syndrome on admission (63% vs. 52%; P = 0.033) and of left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% (36% vs. 23%; p= 0.008), while patients treated with crush stenting had more frequently diabetes mellitus (35% vs. 21%; P = 0.003) and 3-vessel coronary artery disease (46% vs. 29%; P < 0.001). Angiographic follow rate was 95%. Restenosis rates were similar: 7.1% in the crush stenting group and 5.8% in the provisional stenting group. There were no differences in 1-year clinical outcome between crush stenting group and provisional stenting group: major adverse cardiac events 11.1% and 11.2%, stent thrombosis 0.8% and 1.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Crush stenting using EES in patients with complex distal ULMD is associated with low rates of restenosis and adverse clinical events and could be considered as a valid double stenting technique in all patients with complex ULMD bifurcation lesions. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


Assuntos
Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administração & dosagem , Angiografia Coronária , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/diagnóstico por imagem , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/terapia , Vasos Coronários/diagnóstico por imagem , Stents Farmacológicos , Everolimo/administração & dosagem , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/instrumentação , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efeitos adversos , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/mortalidade , Reestenose Coronária/diagnóstico por imagem , Reestenose Coronária/etiologia , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Everolimo/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Itália , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/mortalidade , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Desenho de Prótese , Sistema de Registros , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
J Invasive Cardiol ; 30(12): 443-446, 2018 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30504512

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: It is not clear if differences exist about treating left main bifurcation (LMB) and non-left main bifurcation (non-LMB) lesions by means of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We prospectively analyzed all consecutive patients treated at our center for bifurcation lesions from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015, including acute myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiogenic shock, and compared the angiographic and clinical outcomes of patients with LMB and non-LMB lesions treated with PCI and second-generation drug-eluting stent (2G-DES) implantation. The primary endpoint was the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) composite, including MI, clinically indicated target-vessel revascularization (TVR), and cardiac death (CD) at 2-year follow-up. We also compared the angiographic patency of the vessel, which was a composite of the restenosis-reocclusion (RR) rate. RESULTS: Out of 1081 patients (1368 bifurcations), a total of 320 patients had LMB (29%). Overall, procedural success was 98.4%. Clinical follow-up rate was 100%. Angiographic follow-up rate was 83.7%. No differences were seen regarding the primary endpoint of all MACE (17.8% in LMB vs 18.0% in non-LMB; P>.99), MI rate (4.3% in LMB vs 2.9% in non-LMB; P=.20), and CD (8.7% in LMB vs 5.8% in non-LMB; P=.08). The overall RR rate was 11.8%, with 5% RR rate in the LMB group (16/320 lesions) and 9.7% RR rate in the non-LMB group (102/1048 lesions); P<.01. The LMB group had a better TVR rate (5.0% vs 9.4% in the non-LMB group; P=.01). CONCLUSION: PCI with 2G-DES for LMB has better target-vessel patency and TVR rates when compared with non-LMB lesions, without clinical differences in terms of 2-year clinical outcomes.


Assuntos
Angiografia Coronária/métodos , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/cirurgia , Vasos Coronários/cirurgia , Stents Farmacológicos , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/métodos , Sistema de Registros , Idoso , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/diagnóstico , Vasos Coronários/diagnóstico por imagem , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Prospectivos , Desenho de Prótese , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA