AIMS: Previously, we reported that the nine-month angiographic result after treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with provisional T-stenting was not significantly different from that with routine T-stenting. To compare long-term clinical outcomes of the two stenting strategies, we extended the follow-up of our study on bifurcation stenting. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and one patients with coronary bifurcation lesions had been randomly assigned to provisional T-stenting and 101 to routine T-stenting, using sirolimus-eluting stents. We performed complete five-year follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST). We also monitored death, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE (composite of death, MI and TLR). The cumulative five-year incidence of TLR in the provisional T-stenting arm was not significantly different from that in the routine T-stenting arm (16.2% vs. 16.3%, p=0.97). The same was true for MACE (22.8% vs. 22.9%, p=0.91), the composite of death and MI (9.9% vs. 13.9%, p=0.40), and ST (2.0% vs. 5.1%; p=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: During five-year follow-up, routine T-stenting offered no advantage over provisional T-stenting with respect to TLR or MACE. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00288535
RCT Entities:
AIMS: Previously, we reported that the nine-month angiographic result after treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with provisional T-stenting was not significantly different from that with routine T-stenting. To compare long-term clinical outcomes of the two stenting strategies, we extended the follow-up of our study on bifurcation stenting. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and one patients with coronary bifurcation lesions had been randomly assigned to provisional T-stenting and 101 to routine T-stenting, using sirolimus-eluting stents. We performed complete five-year follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST). We also monitored death, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE (composite of death, MI and TLR). The cumulative five-year incidence of TLR in the provisional T-stenting arm was not significantly different from that in the routine T-stenting arm (16.2% vs. 16.3%, p=0.97). The same was true for MACE (22.8% vs. 22.9%, p=0.91), the composite of death and MI (9.9% vs. 13.9%, p=0.40), and ST (2.0% vs. 5.1%; p=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: During five-year follow-up, routine T-stenting offered no advantage over provisional T-stenting with respect to TLR or MACE. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00288535
Authors: Thomas J Ford; Peter McCartney; David Corcoran; Damien Collison; Barry Hennigan; Margaret McEntegart; David Hildick-Smith; Keith G Oldroyd; Colin Berry Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Indulis Kumsars; Niels Ramsing Holm; Matti Niemelä; Andrejs Erglis; Kari Kervinen; Evald Høj Christiansen; Michael Maeng; Andis Dombrovskis; Vytautas Abraitis; Aleksandras Kibarskis; Thor Trovik; Gustavs Latkovskis; Dace Sondore; Inga Narbute; Christian Juhl Terkelsen; Markku Eskola; Hannu Romppanen; Mika Laine; Lisette Okkels Jensen; Mikko Pietila; Pål Gunnes; Lasse Hebsgaard; Ole Frobert; Fredrik Calais; Juha Hartikainen; Jens Aarøe; Jan Ravkilde; Thomas Engstrøm; Terje K Steigen; Leif Thuesen; Jens F Lassen Journal: Open Heart Date: 2020-01-19
Authors: Dobrin Vassilev; Niya Mileva; Carlos Collet; Pavel Nikolov; Katerina Sokolova; Kiril Karamfiloff; Vladimir Naunov; Jeroen Sonck; Gianluca Rigatelli; Ghassan S Kassab; Robert J Gil Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 4.379