Premium
Comparison of single‐ versus two‐stent techniques in treatment of unprotected left main coronary bifurcation disease
Author(s) -
Kim WonJang,
Kim YoungHak,
Park DukWoo,
Yun SungCheol,
Lee JongYoung,
Kang SooJin,
Lee SeungWhan,
Lee Cheol Whan,
Park SeongWook,
Park SeungJung
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.22915
Subject(s) - medicine , mace , stent , hazard ratio , myocardial infarction , cardiology , percutaneous coronary intervention , coronary artery disease , confidence interval , bare metal stent , surgery , drug eluting stent
Background : This study sought to compare 3‐year outcomes of single‐ versus two‐stent techniques in patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease treated with drug‐eluting stents (DES). Methods and Results : A total of 392 patients with distal unprotected LMCA disease who underwent DES implantation with single‐ ( n = 234) or two‐ ( n = 158) stent techniques were evaluated. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). The two‐stent group was more likely to have extensive coronary artery stenosis. After adjustment with weighted Cox model using the inverse probability of treatment weighting, the 3‐year risk of death was similar in the single‐ and two‐stent groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–2.13, P = 0.62). However, the 3‐year risks of MI (HR, 0.38, 95% CI, 0.19–0.78, P = 0.008), TLR (HR, 0.16, 95% CI, 0.05–0.57, P = 0.005), and MACE (HR, 0.89, 95% CI, 0.22–0.67, P = 0.0007) were significantly lower in the single‐stent group. Conclusion : Compared with the two‐stent technique, the single‐stent technique showed more favorable long‐term clinical outcomes in patients with distal unprotected LMCA disease who received DES. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.