OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with single-stent versus double-stents implantation in distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) bifurcation lesions and evaluate their merits and demerits in this clinical setting. METHODS: 88 patients with distal ULMCA bifurcation lesions and treated with PCI with single or double stents implantation (50 in the one-stent group and 38 in the two-stent group) was included. RESULTS: No significant difference in the number of left main and multivessel disease, stenosis rate of left main, inner diameter of left main vessel, and distal bifurcation angle was noted. The procedural success rate was 100%. Single-stent group had significantly lower ostial residual stenosis of left anterior descending and higher ostial residual stenosis of left circumflex as compared to double-stent group. During the hospitalization period, no major adverse cardiovascular events were observed in the two groups. During the follow-up period, restenosis was observed in 1 case in single-stent group and in 2 cases in double-stent group, respectively. Recurrence of angina and target lesion revascularization was observed in 6 and 1 case in single-stent group, and 4 and 2 cases in double-stent group, respectively. There was no acute myocardial infarction, in-stent thrombosis and cardiac death in both of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both stenting strategies were feasible for distal ULMCA bifurcation lesions with a high operation success rate and safety. Single-stent technique had lower ostial residual stenosis of left anterior descending whereas double-stents technique had lower ostial residual stenosis of left circumflex.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with single-stent versus double-stents implantation in distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) bifurcation lesions and evaluate their merits and demerits in this clinical setting. METHODS: 88 patients with distal ULMCA bifurcation lesions and treated with PCI with single or double stents implantation (50 in the one-stent group and 38 in the two-stent group) was included. RESULTS: No significant difference in the number of left main and multivessel disease, stenosis rate of left main, inner diameter of left main vessel, and distal bifurcation angle was noted. The procedural success rate was 100%. Single-stent group had significantly lower ostial residual stenosis of left anterior descending and higher ostial residual stenosis of left circumflex as compared to double-stent group. During the hospitalization period, no major adverse cardiovascular events were observed in the two groups. During the follow-up period, restenosis was observed in 1 case in single-stent group and in 2 cases in double-stent group, respectively. Recurrence of angina and target lesion revascularization was observed in 6 and 1 case in single-stent group, and 4 and 2 cases in double-stent group, respectively. There was no acute myocardial infarction, in-stent thrombosis and cardiac death in both of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both stenting strategies were feasible for distal ULMCA bifurcation lesions with a high operation success rate and safety. Single-stent technique had lower ostial residual stenosis of left anterior descending whereas double-stents technique had lower ostial residual stenosis of left circumflex.
Entities:
Keywords:
Unprotected left main coronary artery; bifurcation lesions; percutaneous coronary intervention; stent
Authors: Angela Hoye; Ioannis Iakovou; Lei Ge; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Andrew T L Ong; John Cosgrave; Giuseppe M Sangiorgi; Flavio Airoldi; Matteo Montorfano; Iassen Michev; Alaide Chieffo; Mauro Carlino; Nicola Corvaja; Jiro Aoki; Gaston A Rodriguez Granillo; Marco Valgimigli; Georgios Sianos; Willem J van der Giessen; Pim J de Feyter; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys; Antonio Colombo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-04-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Frederick G Kushner; Mary Hand; Sidney C Smith; Spencer B King; Jeffrey L Anderson; Elliott M Antman; Steven R Bailey; Eric R Bates; James C Blankenship; Donald E Casey; Lee A Green; Judith S Hochman; Alice K Jacobs; Harlan M Krumholz; Douglass A Morrison; Joseph P Ornato; David L Pearle; Eric D Peterson; Michael A Sloan; Patrick L Whitlow; David O Williams Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Tullio Palmerini; Diego Sangiorgi; Antonio Marzocchi; Corrado Tamburino; Imad Sheiban; Massimo Margheri; Giuseppe Vecchi; Giuseppe Sangiorgi; Michele Ruffini; Antonio L Bartorelli; Carlo Briguori; Luigi Vignali; Francesco Di Pede; Angelo Ramondo; Luigi Inglese; Marco De Carlo; Leonardo Bolognese; Alberto Benassi; Cataldo Palmieri; Vincenzo Filippone; Fabio Barlocco; Giulia Lauria; Stefano De Servi Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Manesh R Patel; Gregory J Dehmer; John W Hirshfeld; Peter K Smith; John A Spertus Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 24.094