AIMS: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected distal left main stenosis (UDLM) is increasingly performed as an alternative to surgical treatment. The optimal strategy for stenting in this setting is still a matter of debate. Therefore, this analysis investigated the long-term clinical outcome of a single- versus a double-stenting strategy for treatment of UDLM. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a large registry, 867 consecutive patients with UDLM undergoing either single or double stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) were identified. Follow-up was up to 10 (median 3.1, interquartile range 1.1-5.3) years. Primary endpoint was MACE consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion re-intervention (TLR). Secondary clinical endpoints included these single endpoints and stent thrombosis. MACE occurred in 41.5% after single and in 49.0% after double stenting (P = 0.03). TLR was lower after single (17.4%) as compared to double stenting (27.2%; P < 0.01). Between single and double stenting, there were no significant differences for death (26.4 versus 23.3%; P = 0.31), death or myocardial infarction (29.1 versus 27.2%; P = 0.55), or definite/probable stent thrombosis (1.3 versus 2.1%; P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with single stenting, double stenting was associated with a significantly higher long-term risk of MACE. This was driven by a higher incidence of TLR, whereas the risk of death, MI, or stent thrombosis was similar between the two strategies.
AIMS: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected distal left main stenosis (UDLM) is increasingly performed as an alternative to surgical treatment. The optimal strategy for stenting in this setting is still a matter of debate. Therefore, this analysis investigated the long-term clinical outcome of a single- versus a double-stenting strategy for treatment of UDLM. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a large registry, 867 consecutive patients with UDLM undergoing either single or double stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) were identified. Follow-up was up to 10 (median 3.1, interquartile range 1.1-5.3) years. Primary endpoint was MACE consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion re-intervention (TLR). Secondary clinical endpoints included these single endpoints and stent thrombosis. MACE occurred in 41.5% after single and in 49.0% after double stenting (P = 0.03). TLR was lower after single (17.4%) as compared to double stenting (27.2%; P < 0.01). Between single and double stenting, there were no significant differences for death (26.4 versus 23.3%; P = 0.31), death or myocardial infarction (29.1 versus 27.2%; P = 0.55), or definite/probable stent thrombosis (1.3 versus 2.1%; P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with single stenting, double stenting was associated with a significantly higher long-term risk of MACE. This was driven by a higher incidence of TLR, whereas the risk of death, MI, or stent thrombosis was similar between the two strategies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bifurcation; Distal left main stenosis; Drug-eluting stents; Reintervention; Restenosis; TAP stenting
Authors: Wojciech Jan Skorupski; Marta Kałużna-Oleksy; Maciej Lesiak; Aleksander Araszkiewicz; Włodzimierz Skorupski; Stefan Grajek; Przemysław Mitkowski; Małgorzata Pyda; Marek Grygier Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-25