0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessBackground: Distal left main (LM) coronary artery bifurcation disease increases percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedural complexity and is associated with worse outcomes than isolated ostial/shaft disease. The optimal treatment strategy for distal LM disease is undetermined. We sought to determine whether outcomes after PCI of LM distal bifurcation lesions are influenced by treatment with a provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent technique, and if so, whether such differences are conditioned by the complexity of the LM bifurcation lesion. Methods and Results: The clinical and angiographic characteristics, procedural methods and outcomes, and clinical events through 3-year follow-up were compared in patients undergoing distal LM PCI with a 1-stent provisional versus planned 2-stent technique in the EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization). Among 529 patients undergoing planned distal LM PCI, 344 (65.0%) and 185 (35.0%) were treated with intended 1-stent provisional and planned 2-stent techniques, respectively. The primary composite end point rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 3 years was significantly lower in patients treated with the provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent method (14.1% versus 20.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35–0.88; P =0.01), driven by differences in cardiovascular death (3.3% versus 8.3%, P =0.01) and myocardial infarction (7.7% versus 12.8%, P =0.06). The 3-year rate of ischemia-driven revascularization of the LM complex was also lower in the provisional group (7.2% versus 16.3%, P =0.001). In 342 patients with distal LM bifurcation disease that did not involve both major side branch vessels, the 3-year primary end point was lower with a provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent technique (13.8% versus 23.3%, P =0.04), whereas no significant difference was present in 182 patients with distal LM bifurcation disease that did involve both side branch vessels (14.3% versus 19.2%, P =0.36). Conclusions: Among patients with distal LM bifurcation disease in the EXCEL trial randomized to PCI, 3-year adverse outcomes were worse with planned 2-stent treatment compared with a provisional 1-stent approach, a difference that was confined to patients without major involvement of both LM side branch vessels. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01205776.
David E. Kandzari, Anthony Gershlick, Patrick W. Serruys, Martin B. Leon, Marie‐Claude Morice, Charles A. Simonton, Nicholas Lembo, Adrian Banning, Béla Merkely, Ad J. van Boven, Imre Ungi, A. Pieter Kappetein, Joseph F. Sabik, Philippe Généreux, Ovidiu Dressler, Gregg W. Stone (2018). Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Distal Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions, 11(10), DOI: 10.1161/circinterventions.118.007007.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2018
Authors
16
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
English
Journal
Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions
DOI
10.1161/circinterventions.118.007007
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access