Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Clin Res Cardiol ; 112(9): 1164-1174, 2023 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35776144

RESUMEN

AIM: We evaluated a decision algorithm for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) based on a no-stent strategy, corresponding to a combination of scoring balloon angioplasty (SCBA) and drug-coated balloon (DCB), as a first line approach. Stents were used only in unstable patients, or in case of mandatory bailout stenting (BO-stent). METHODS: From April 2019 to March 2020, 984 consecutive patients, including 1922 lesions, underwent PCI. The 12-month primary end-point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and target lesion revascularization. Patients were classified into conventional or no-stent strategy groups according to the PCI strategy. In the no-stent strategy group, they were further classified into BO-stent or DCB-only groups. Their metal index was calculated by stent length divided by the total lesion length. RESULTS: The no-stent strategy was applied in 85% of the patients, and it was successful for 65% of them. MACE occurred in 7.1% of the study population, including 4.2% of all-cause death. Target lesion revascularization was required in 1.4%, 3.6%, and 1.5% of patients in the conventional DES, BO-stent, and DCB-only groups, respectively. MACE occurred more often in the elderly and in those treated with at least one stent (metal index greater than 0). CONCLUSIONS: The no-stent strategy, i.e., revascularization of coronary lesions by SCBA followed by DCB and with DES bailout stenting, was effective and safe at 1 year. This PCI approach was applicable on a daily practice in our cath lab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03893396, first posted on March 28, 2019). Feasibility, safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions following a decision tree proposing a no-stent strategy in stable patients with coronary artery disease. DES: drug eluting stent; SCBA: scoring balloon angioplasty; BO-stent: at least one stent; DCB: drug coated balloon; BMS: bare metal stent; Bailout (dash lines); MACE: major adverse cardiac event.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Humanos , Anciano , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/cirugía , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Árboles de Decisión
2.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv ; 14(11): e011314, 2021 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34420366

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for nonculprit lesions guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is superior to treatment of the culprit lesion alone. Whether deferring nonculprit PCI is safe in this specific context is questionable. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes at 1 year in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and an FFR-guided strategy for nonculprit lesions, according to whether or not ≥1 PCI was performed. METHODS: Outcomes were analyzed in patients of the randomized FLOWER-MI (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial in whom, after successful primary PCI, nonculprit lesions were assessed using FFR. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned hospitalization with urgent revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Among 1171 patients enrolled in this study, 586 were assigned to the FFR-guided group: 388 (66%) of them had ≥1 PCI, and 198 (34%) had no PCI. Mean FFR before decision (ie, PCI or not) of nonculprit lesions was 0.75±0.10 and 0.88±0.06, respectively. During follow-up, a primary outcome event occurred in 16 of 388 patients (4.1%) in patients with PCI and in 16 of 198 patients (8.1%) in patients without PCI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20-0.88]; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing complete revascularization guided by FFR measurement, those with ≥1 PCI had lower event rates at 1 year, compared with patients with deferred PCI, suggesting that deferring lesions judged relevant by visual estimation but with FFR >0.80 may not be optimal in this context. Future randomized studies are needed to confirm these data. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02943954. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria , Reserva del Flujo Fraccional Miocárdico , Infarto del Miocardio , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST , Angiografía Coronaria , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Humanos , Infarto del Miocardio/diagnóstico por imagen , Infarto del Miocardio/terapia , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/diagnóstico por imagen , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/terapia , Resultado del Tratamiento
4.
Am J Cardiol ; 114(11): 1651-7, 2014 Dec 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25304976

RESUMEN

Results from randomized trials evaluating thrombus aspiration (TA) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are conflicting. We assessed 1-year survival in STEMI patients participating in the French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation and non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) 2010 according to the use of TA during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). FAST-MI 2010 is a nationwide French registry that included 4,169 patients with acute myocardial infarction at the end of 2010 in 213 centers. Of those, 2,087 patients had STEMI, of whom 1,538 had primary PCI, with TA used in 671 (44%). Patients with TA were younger (61 ± 13.5 vs 63 ± 14 years), with a similar risk score of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (140 ± 31 vs 143 ± 34) and a shorter median time from symptom onset (245 vs 285 minutes); location of acute myocardial infarction, history of myocardial infarction, PCI, or coronary artery bypass surgery did not differ significantly. Thirty-day mortality was 2.1% versus 2.1% (adjusted p = 0.18), and the rate of 1-year survival was 95.5% versus 94.8%. Using fully adjusted Cox multivariate analysis, hazard ratio for 1-year death was 1.13 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.94). After propensity score matching (480 patients per group), 1-year survival was also similar with both strategies. In a real-world setting of patients admitted with STEMI, the use of TA during primary PCI was not associated with improved 1-year survival.


Asunto(s)
Trombosis Coronaria/terapia , Infarto del Miocardio/terapia , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/métodos , Sistema de Registros , Trombectomía/métodos , Anciano , Angiografía Coronaria , Trombosis Coronaria/mortalidad , Femenino , Francia/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis Multivariante , Infarto del Miocardio/mortalidad , Puntaje de Propensión , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Succión/métodos , Tasa de Supervivencia , Tiempo de Tratamiento , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA