1. Trang chủ
  2. » Thể loại khác

Bài giảng A decade of left main intervention: PCI vs CABG where are we now

55 26 0

Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)

Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống

THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU

Thông tin cơ bản

Định dạng
Số trang 55
Dung lượng 4,6 MB

Nội dung

The lecture presents the content LMCA interventionalists are called cowboy doctors; mai primary endpoint landmark analysisn compare 5 year; syntax left main subgroup; guideline recommendations for left main revascularisation; temporal trends of LM revascularization...

A Decade of Left Main Intervention : PCI vs CABG Where are we now ? Gim-Hooi Choo Cardiac Vascular Sentral KL (CVSKL) 12th July, 2019 Disclosure • No conflicts pertaining to this lecture hinhanhykhoa.com Sypnosis • Left Main Stem Revascularisation: The Story A Decade Earlier • After EXCEL and NOBLE in 2016 : More Clarity or Confusion? • Current Position of LMCA Revascularisation Left Main : Why the Fuss ? • inch length • % of coronary intervention • Supplies 75% of myocardial perfusion (if Right dominance) • Major Bifurcation • Associated with Multi-vessel disease Andreas Gruentzig’s Log Book : 1st Successful LMCA PCI : 3rd PCI case [Nov 24th 1977] “Third PCI patient ever treated Forty-three year old man with severe angina pectoris since September, 1977 First angiogram (November 11) revealed severe stenosis of the main L.C.A .” Note: The patient expired suddenly about months after this procedure Gruntzig A Lancet 1978;1:263 CABG was the ONLY option ! Yusuf S et al Lancet 1994; 344: 563-70 For 30 years, Surgeons RULED ! Left Main is a No Entry Zone for Interventionalists ! LMCA Interventionalists are called COWBOY Doctors MAIN COMPARE, Year Propensity Match Patients (n=542) DES vs CABG Park DW, et al JACC 2010;56:117-24 Pre-2016 RCTs Limitations : First Generation of DES ; Low rate of IVUS/OCT use Non inferiority trial Relative small sample size SYNTAX – LM : a subgroup Large Non-Inferiority margin (6-7%) hinhanhykhoa.com Results Total repeat revascularization HR 1·50 (1·04–2·17); p=0·03 16·2% 10·4% Makikallio T et al Lancet 2016;388:2743–52 Results : Stroke HR 2·25 (0·92–5·48); p=0·07 4·9% 1·7% Makikallio T et al Lancet 2016;388:2743–52 Results SYNTAX score subgroups K-M estimates 4.9% 1.9% HR 1·88 (1·23–2·89); p=0·0031 HR 1·16 (0·76–1·78); p=0·48 HR 1·41 (0·62–3·20); p=0·41 SYNTAX score assessed by independent corelab (CERC) Updated Meta-analysis PCI vs CABG at years RCTs, n=4,686 pts, Boudriot, LE MANS, PRECOMBAT, SYNTAX, NOBLE, EXCEL Palmerini T et al Am Heart J 2017;190:54-63 LM Revascularisation : Are only these Endpoints Important? CABG or PCI revascularisation Two Very Different Procedures… Different Cosmesis & Recovery Potential EXCEL: Major Adverse Events Within 30 Days (Periprocedural Events) Peri-procedural MAE, any - Death* - Stroke* - Myocardial infarction* - Ischemia-driven revascularization* - TIMI major/minor bleeding - Transfusion ≥2 units - Major arrhythmia** - Surgery/radiologic procedure - Renal failure† - Sternal wound dehiscence - Infection requiring antibiotics - Prolonged intubation (>48 hours) - Post-pericardiotomy syndrome PCI (n=948) CABG (n=957) RR [95%CI] P-value 8.1% 23.0% 0.35 [0.28, 0.45]

Ngày đăng: 15/01/2020, 19:46

w