Three-Year Outcomes After Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes after stenting of an unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) with drug-eluting stents have not been addressed adequately despite the growing popularity of this procedure. METHODS AND RESULTS: j-Cypher is a multicenter prospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in Japan. Among 12 824 patients enrolled in the j-Cypher registry, the unadjusted mortality rate at 3 years was significantly higher in patients with ULMCA stenting (n=582) than in patients without ULMCA stenting (n=12 242; 14.6% versus 9.2%, respectively; P<0.0001); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the adjusted risk of death (hazard ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.60, P=0.12). Among 476 patients whose ULMCA lesions were treated exclusively with a sirolimus-eluting stent, patients with ostial/shaft lesions (n=96) compared with those with bifurcation lesions (n=380) had a significantly lower rate of target-lesion revascularization for the ULMCA lesions (3.6% versus 17.1%, P=0.005), with similar cardiac death rates at 3 years (9.8% versus 7.6%, P=0.41). Among patients with bifurcation lesions, patients with stenting of both the main and side branches (n=119) had significantly higher rates of cardiac death (12.2% versus 5.5%; P=0.02) and target-lesion revascularization (30.9% versus 11.1%; P<0.0001) than those with main-branch stenting alone (n=261). CONCLUSIONS: The higher unadjusted mortality rate of patients undergoing ULMCA stenting with a sirolimus-eluting stent did not appear to be related to ULMCA treatment itself but rather to the patients' high-risk profile. Although long-term outcomes in patients with ostial/shaft ULMCA lesions were favorable, outcomes in patients with bifurcation lesions treated with stenting of both the main and side branches appeared unacceptable.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.