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.
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.