Background It is still controversial whether percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent （DES） is safe and effective compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery （CABG） for unprotected left main...Background It is still controversial whether percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent （DES） is safe and effective compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery （CABG） for unprotected left main coronary artery （ULMCA） disease at long-term follow up （≥3 years）. Methods Eligible studies were selected by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to December 6, 2016. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction （MI） or stroke during the longest follow-up. Death, cardiac death, MI, stroke and repeat revascularization were the secondary outcomes. Results Four randomized controlled trials and twelve adjusted observational studies involving 14,130 patients were included. DES was comparable to CABG regarding the occurrence of the primary endpoint （FIR = 0.94, 95% CI： 0.86-1.03）. Besides, DES was significantly associated with higher incidence of MI （HR = 1.56, 95% CI： 1.09-2.22） and repeat revascularization （HR = 3.09, 95% CI： 2.33-4.10） compared with CABG, while no difference was found between the two strategies regard as the rate of death, cardiac death and stroke. Furthermore, DES can reduce the risk of the composite endpoint of death, MI or stroke （HR = 0.80, 95% CI： 0.67-0.95） for ULMCA lesions with SYNTAX score ≤32. Conclusions Although with higher risk of repeat revascularization, PCI with DES appears to be as safe as CABG for ULMCA disease at long-term follow up. In addition, treatment with DES could be an alternative interventional strategy to CABG for ULMCA lesions with low to intermediate anatomic complexity.展开更多
Objective To evaluate the early and mid-term results of endovascular repair for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection, and to compare the clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Methods From May 2002 to December ...Objective To evaluate the early and mid-term results of endovascular repair for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection, and to compare the clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Methods From May 2002 to December 2006, 50 patients with type B aortic dissection were treated by endovascular stent-graft. There were 23 patients in the acute aortic dissection (AAD) group and 27 patients in the chronic aortic dissection (CAD) group. All patients were followed up from 1 to 54 months (average, 17±16 months).The immediate and follow-up clinical outcomes were documented and compared between the 2 groups. Results Placement of endovascular stent-grafts across the primary entry tears was technically successful in all 50 patients. Compared to the CAD group, the AAD group had a higher percentage of pleural effusion (17.4% vs. 0%, P=0.04) and visceral /leg ischemia (26.1% vs 3.7%, P=0.04). Procedure related complications, including endoleak and post-implantation syndrome, occurred more frequently in the AAD group than in the CAD group (21.7% vs 3.7% and 30.4% vs 11.1%, respectively; P=0.08 and P=0.04). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no difference in the survival rate at 4 years between the 2 groups (86.4% vs 92.3%, P=0.42 by log-rank test). However, the event-free survival rate was higher in patients with chronic dissection than in patients with acute aortic dissection(96.2% vs 73.9%; P=0.02 by log-rank test). Conclu- sions Endovascular repair with stent-graft was safe and effective for the treatment of both acute and chronic type B aortic dissection. However, both immediate and long term major complications occurred more frequently in patients with acute dissection than in those with chronic dissection.展开更多
The development of thoracic endovascular aortic repair(TEVAR)technology avoids the risk of patients opening the chest and is widely used in Stanford B-type dissection.[1–3]However,because TEVAR technology has clear r...The development of thoracic endovascular aortic repair(TEVAR)technology avoids the risk of patients opening the chest and is widely used in Stanford B-type dissection.[1–3]However,because TEVAR technology has clear requirements for vascular anatomy of the lesion,it limits its application to some patients.In the shortcomings of the proximal anchor zone,coverage of the left subclavian artery(LSA)origin without revascularization during TEVAR appears to have increased risk of stroke,upper extremity ischemia and paraplegia.[4]展开更多
文摘Background It is still controversial whether percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent （DES） is safe and effective compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery （CABG） for unprotected left main coronary artery （ULMCA） disease at long-term follow up （≥3 years）. Methods Eligible studies were selected by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to December 6, 2016. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction （MI） or stroke during the longest follow-up. Death, cardiac death, MI, stroke and repeat revascularization were the secondary outcomes. Results Four randomized controlled trials and twelve adjusted observational studies involving 14,130 patients were included. DES was comparable to CABG regarding the occurrence of the primary endpoint （FIR = 0.94, 95% CI： 0.86-1.03）. Besides, DES was significantly associated with higher incidence of MI （HR = 1.56, 95% CI： 1.09-2.22） and repeat revascularization （HR = 3.09, 95% CI： 2.33-4.10） compared with CABG, while no difference was found between the two strategies regard as the rate of death, cardiac death and stroke. Furthermore, DES can reduce the risk of the composite endpoint of death, MI or stroke （HR = 0.80, 95% CI： 0.67-0.95） for ULMCA lesions with SYNTAX score ≤32. Conclusions Although with higher risk of repeat revascularization, PCI with DES appears to be as safe as CABG for ULMCA disease at long-term follow up. In addition, treatment with DES could be an alternative interventional strategy to CABG for ULMCA lesions with low to intermediate anatomic complexity.
文摘Objective To evaluate the early and mid-term results of endovascular repair for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection, and to compare the clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Methods From May 2002 to December 2006, 50 patients with type B aortic dissection were treated by endovascular stent-graft. There were 23 patients in the acute aortic dissection (AAD) group and 27 patients in the chronic aortic dissection (CAD) group. All patients were followed up from 1 to 54 months (average, 17±16 months).The immediate and follow-up clinical outcomes were documented and compared between the 2 groups. Results Placement of endovascular stent-grafts across the primary entry tears was technically successful in all 50 patients. Compared to the CAD group, the AAD group had a higher percentage of pleural effusion (17.4% vs. 0%, P=0.04) and visceral /leg ischemia (26.1% vs 3.7%, P=0.04). Procedure related complications, including endoleak and post-implantation syndrome, occurred more frequently in the AAD group than in the CAD group (21.7% vs 3.7% and 30.4% vs 11.1%, respectively; P=0.08 and P=0.04). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no difference in the survival rate at 4 years between the 2 groups (86.4% vs 92.3%, P=0.42 by log-rank test). However, the event-free survival rate was higher in patients with chronic dissection than in patients with acute aortic dissection(96.2% vs 73.9%; P=0.02 by log-rank test). Conclu- sions Endovascular repair with stent-graft was safe and effective for the treatment of both acute and chronic type B aortic dissection. However, both immediate and long term major complications occurred more frequently in patients with acute dissection than in those with chronic dissection.
文摘The development of thoracic endovascular aortic repair(TEVAR)technology avoids the risk of patients opening the chest and is widely used in Stanford B-type dissection.[1–3]However,because TEVAR technology has clear requirements for vascular anatomy of the lesion,it limits its application to some patients.In the shortcomings of the proximal anchor zone,coverage of the left subclavian artery(LSA)origin without revascularization during TEVAR appears to have increased risk of stroke,upper extremity ischemia and paraplegia.[4]
