|
| HOME | SUBSCRIPTIONS | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | CARDIOSOURCE | SEARCH | HELP | FEEDBACK |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 45:351-356, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.039 © 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation |
* Department of Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York.
Manuscript received July 27, 2004; revised manuscript received September 27, 2004, accepted October 4, 2004.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Seung-Jung Park, Department of Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 388-1 Poongnap-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea (Email: sjpark{at}amc.seoul.kr).
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of SES implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis have not been ascertained.
METHODS: Elective SES implantation for de novo unprotected LMCA stenosis was performed in 102 consecutive patients with preserved left ventricular function from March 2003 to March 2004. Data from this group were compared to those from 121 patients treated with BMS during the preceding two years.
RESULTS: Compared to the BMS group, the SES group received more direct stenting, had fewer debulking atherectomies, had a greater number of stents, had more segments stented, and underwent more bifurcation stenting. The procedural success rate was 100% for both groups. There were no incidents of death, stent thrombosis, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), or emergent bypass surgery during hospitalization in either group. Despite less acute gain (2.06 ± 0.56 mm vs. 2.73 ± 0.73 mm, p < 0.001) in the SES group, SES patients showed a lower late lumen loss (0.05 ± 0.57 mm vs. 1.27 ± 0.90 mm, p < 0.001) and a lower six-month angiographic restenosis rate (7.0% vs. 30.3%, p < 0.001) versus the BMS group. At 12 months, the rate of freedom from death, MI, and target lesion revascularization was 98.0 ± 1.4% in the SES group and 81.4 ± 3.7% in the BMS group (p = 0.0003).
CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis appears safe with regard to acute and midterm complications and is more effective in preventing restenosis compared to BMS implantation.
| ||||||||||||
The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) (Cypher, Cordis, Johnson and Johnson Corp, Miami, Florida) markedly decreases in-stent restenosis in elective patients with relatively simple coronary lesions (9,10). Recent reports from the RESEARCH registry suggest that SES implantation for LMCA stenosis may lead to favorable clinical outcomes by decreasing restenosis (11,12). However, these studies were limited by their small numbers of patients, heterogeneity of inclusion criteria, and low rates of angiographic follow-up.
The present study reports the clinical and angiographic outcomes following elective SES implantation and compares these outcomes with those of BMS implantation in a large number of patients with unprotected LMCA stenoses.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
50% diameter stenosis of the LMCA suitable for stent placement. The LMCA was considered unprotected if there were no patent coronary artery bypass grafts to the left anterior descending artery or left circumflex artery (LCX). Patients with a contraindication for antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction 
40%), were excluded. Informed written consent was obtained from patients in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Stenting procedure.
In general, LMCA intervention was performed as previously described (13). Predilation was routinely performed for BMS implantations, whereas the SES group underwent predilation only in selected cases with very tight stenoses in order to minimize balloon injury to the arterial wall. Most lesions at the ostium or shaft without involvement of the bifurcation were treated with a single stent. Bifurcation lesions were treated using one of the four following stenting strategies at the operator's discretion: stenting across the LCX ostium, kissing stenting, T stenting, or the Crush technique. The techniques of stenting across the LCX ostium, kissing stenting, and T stenting were performed as previously described (6). In the BMS group, bifurcation stenting such as kissing stenting or T stenting was rarely used because our previous study showed these complex stenting techniques did not result in superior outcomes compared to simple stenting techniques (6). The Crush technique is a relatively new bifurcation stenting technique involving drug-eluting stents for bifurcation coronary lesions (14). Final kissing balloon dilation was performed in cases with suboptimal results at the LCX ostium after bifurcation treatment and in most Crush technique cases (n = 10). Stenting across the LCX ostium was frequently adopted in patients with normal or diminutive (2.5 mm) LCX, whereas complex techniques such as kissing stenting, T stenting, and Crush technique were used in cases of a diseased LCX.
The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was strongly encouraged to achieve optimal stent placement. In the BMS group, debulking atherectomy before stenting was performed to decrease plaque burden in suitable cases. In contrast, in the SES group debulking atherectomy was used in only three cases to facilitate stent delivery to the target lesions. An intra-aortic balloon pump was used in selected cases for hemodynamic support. Postdilation with balloons larger than the nominal stent size was performed in cases of suboptimal stent expansion according to IVUS examination. Use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was restricted because of the limited reimbursement in this country, and their use was left to the operator's discretion. Until May 2003, the available SES size was 3.0 mm, and 16 patients received this size. All patients received aspirin (200 mg/day) indefinitely and a loading dose of 300 mg clopidogrel, followed by 75 mg daily in a single dose for six months in the SES group and for one month in the BMS group. In addition, 200 mg cilostazol was administered as a loading dose, followed by 100 mg twice daily for one month in the SES group (15). A loading dose of clopidogrel or cilostazol was administered within 24 h before the procedure. Combined use of cilostazol after SES implantation was based on our unpublished findings, which showed a superior clinical outcome when using triple antiplatelet combination compared to double conventional combination therapy after stenting for complex coronary lesions.
Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) analysis. Coronary angiography was performed after administering 0.2 mg intracoronary nitroglycerin. Coronary angiographic results were analyzed by two experienced angiographers not involved in the stenting procedures. Using the guiding catheter for magnification calibration and an online QCA system (ANCOR V2.0, Siemens, Solna, Sweden), minimal lumen diameter, percent diameter stenosis, and reference vessel diameter were measured before and after intervention and at follow-up from diastolic frames in single, matched views showing the smallest lumen diameter. The diameters of normal segments proximal and distal to the treated area were averaged to determine the reference diameter. In ostial and bifurcation lesions, adjacent normal segments were used as a reference. The acute gain was calculated as the difference between the minimal lumen diameter before and after the procedure. The late loss was defined as the difference in minimal lumen diameter after the procedure and at follow-up.
Quantitative IVUS analysis. Preintervention and postintervention IVUS images were obtained after administering 0.2 mg intracoronary nitroglycerin using a commercial IVUS system (SciMed/Boston Scientific, San Jose, California) and motorized pullback at 0.5 mm/s. The external elastic membrane (EEM) and lumen cross-sectional areas (CSA) were measured using computerized planimetry, according to validated and published protocols (16–18). The plaque burden (%) was measured as: 100 x (EEM CSA – lumen CSA)/EEM CSA. After intervention, the lesion site was the image slice with the smallest lumen CSA.
Follow-up. All patients were evaluated clinically by office visits or telephone interviews at one, three, and six months, and then every four months after stenting. Repeat coronary angiography was routinely performed six months after stenting or earlier if clinically indicated by symptoms or documentation of myocardial ischemia.
Definition.
Procedural success was defined as a Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3 and <30% residual diameter stenosis by QCA, without major procedural or in-hospital complications such as death, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), or emergent bypass surgery. A major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as the occurrence of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, and target lesion revascularization during the follow-up period. Deaths that could not be classified were considered cardiac-related. Angiographic restenosis was defined as a diameter stenosis of 50% at the target site or the major side branches, such as the left anterior descending artery or the LCX. An untreated diminutive LCX with a diameter stenosis of 50% after the procedure and at follow-up was not considered restenosed.
Statistical analysis. Data are expressed as mean ± 1 SD for continuous variables and as frequencies for categorical variables. Differences between groups were assessed using chi-square statistics for categorical variables and Student t test for continuous variables. Clinical outcomes after one year were compared because the two groups were treated at different times. Major adverse cardiac event-free survival distributions were estimated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to compare MACE-free survival between the two groups. A value p < 0.05 was considered to represent a significant difference. Statistical analysis was performed using commercially available software (SPSS 11 for windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
1 mm larger than the nominal stent size was performed in 18 SES patients and four BMS patients (p < 0.001). Bifurcation stenting, including kissing stenting, T stenting, or Crush technique of bifurcation LMCA lesions, was performed in 40.3% of the SES group and in 17.6% of the BMS group (p = 0.010).
|
3 times normal developed in seven SES patients (6.9%) and in 10 BMS patients (8.3%) (p = 0.69). There were no incidents of death, stent thrombosis, Q-wave MI, or emergent bypass surgery during hospitalization in either group. Quantitative angiographic and IVUS results after the procedures are shown in Tables 2 and 4. We found that the QCA minimal lumen diameter (4.08 ± 0.57 mm vs. 3.36 ± 0.47mm, p < 0.001) and IVUS lesion lumen CSA (12.41 ± 3.20 mm2 vs. 9.62 ± 2.57 mm2, p < 0.001) after procedure were larger owing to greater acute lumen gain (2.73 ± 0.73 mm vs. 2.06 ± 0.56 mm, p < 0.001) in the BMS group compared to the SES group.
|
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
There are few reports regarding implantation of drug-eluting stents for LMCA stenosis. Two papers from the RESEARCH registry reported favorable results of SES implantation in LMCA stenoses (11,12). However, those studies involved small populations, included emergent interventions or protected LMCA stenoses, and had limited angiographic follow-up. In contrast, the present study included a large number of elective patients with unprotected LMCA stenoses. In addition, this study compared outcomes of SES with contemporary BMS implantation.
The design of the current study was such that BMS patients were treated between March 2001 and March 2003 in the pre-SES era, whereas SES patients were treated in the subsequent period between March 2003 and March 2004. Although the study was conducted over a relatively short period (three years), the two groups showed significant differences in terms of clinical characteristics and underwent different stenting strategies. Patients undergoing SES implantation were treated with a less restrictive interventional approach, similar to the RESEARCH registry (19). Sirolimus-eluting stent patients showed more complex baseline clinical characteristics than BMS patients, which led to an expectation of greater procedural and long-term complications (20). The SES patients included more multivessel disease, more bifurcation lesions, and longer lesion lengths. This difference in preoperative characteristics between the two groups was due to our expectation that the remarkable benefits of SES observed in the RAVEL and the SIRIUS trials might extend to more complex lesions (9,10,19). The stenting strategy was also different for the BMS procedure compared to the SES procedure. To avoid arterial trauma outside the stented segment, direct stenting without predilation followed by postdilation with an additional balloon were performed more frequently in SES patients compared to BMS patients (21).
There is a favorable initial outcome after LMCA intervention using BMS in low-risk patients (1–3,5,7). However, in-stent restenosis after BMS implantation is the most important reason for bypass surgery as the first choice for treating LMCA stenosis. In-stent restenosis in these patients not only influences long-term survival, but may also make repeat intervention so difficult that surgery is required (5). Despite endeavors to decrease in-stent restenosis after LMCA intervention using BMS, such as using aggressive debulking atherectomy, the restenosis rate remains at 20% to 30% (1,5,8). In the present study, BMS implantation with more use of debulking atherectomy achieved larger lumen gain than SES implantation (2). However, SES was associated with less angiographic restenosis and less target lesion revascularization compared to BMS. These results indicate that SES implantation may be very effective in suppressing intimal growth even in complex LMCA lesions and may lead to an excellent long-term clinical outcome.
A recent study reported that LMCA stenting using a 3.0 mm SES resulted in a relatively high target lesion revascularization rate (18.7%), suggesting that a 3.0 mm stent might not achieve adequate or homogenous drug delivery in large vessels such as the LMCA (22). In the present study, 16 SES patients received stents of 3.0 mm, and 18% of total patients underwent IVUS-guided extreme overdilation with a balloon 1 mm larger than the nominal stent size (23). However, restenosis in the main LMCA vessel occurred in only 2.0% of SES patients. Thus, LMCA SES implantation appears to be a highly efficient treatment, even when stents larger than 3.5 mm are not available.
Bifurcation LMCA lesions are considered inappropriate for percutaneous intervention owing to the technical difficulties of stenting and the possible narrowing of the large side branches (left anterior descending artery or LCX) after stenting. The first clinical randomized study using SES for bifurcation coronary lesions showed a very low restenosis rate in the main vessel compared with historical controls (24). However, the study did not reveal a benefit of side branch SES over balloon angioplasty in terms of side branch patency. In the present study, the higher overall restenosis rate in bifurcation lesions (6/61 patients, 9.8%) compared to proximal lesions (0 of 25 patients, 0%) after SES implantation indicates that treatment of bifurcation lesions remains challenging even in the era of drug-eluting stents (14,24,25). However, the present results showing very low restenosis rates in the main vessel and a very low frequency of target lesion revascularization indicate that the LMCA bifurcation may become an inviting target for percutaneous intervention with SES.
It is pertinent to note that the findings are based on a relatively short-term, single-center observational study. Furthermore, the number of study patients was too small to generalize our results to all patients with LMCA lesions. However, the present study provides important new information regarding the safety and effectiveness of SES implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis. These data encourage the undertaking of a large, long-term, multicenter randomized study to compare SES implantation and bypass surgery for unprotected LMCA stenosis.
|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Wu, E. L. Hannan, G. Walford, and D. P. Faxon Utilization and outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery stenting and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2008; 86(4): 1153 - 1159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Chieffo, S.-J. Park, E. Meliga, I. Sheiban, M. S. Lee, A. Latib, Y.-H. Kim, M. Valgimigli, D. Sillano, V. Magni, et al. Late and very late stent thrombosis following drug-eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main coronary artery: a multicentre registry Eur. Heart J., September 1, 2008; 29(17): 2108 - 2115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. S. Brar, G. Syros, and G. Dangas Multivessel Disease: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Classic Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Indications Angiology, August 1, 2008; 59(2_suppl): 83S - 88S. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Meliga, H. M. Garcia-Garcia, M. Valgimigli, A. Chieffo, G. Biondi-Zoccai, A. O. Maree, S. Cook, L. Reardon, C. Moretti, S. De Servi, et al. Longest available clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the DELFT (Drug Eluting stent for LeFT main) Registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 10, 2008; 51(23): 2212 - 2219. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. B. Seung, D.-W. Park, Y.-H. Kim, S.-W. Lee, C. W. Lee, M.-K. Hong, S.-W. Park, S.-C. Yun, H.-C. Gwon, M.-H. Jeong, et al. Stents versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease N. Engl. J. Med., April 24, 2008; 358(17): 1781 - 1792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D.-W. Park, S.-C. Yun, S.-W. Lee, Y.-H. Kim, C. W. Lee, M.-K. Hong, J.-J. Kim, S. J. Choo, H. Song, C. H. Chung, et al. Long-Term Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for the Treatment of Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Circulation, April 22, 2008; 117(16): 2079 - 2086. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. G. Malvindi, J. Dunning, and N. Vitale For which patients with left main stem disease is percutaneous intervention rather than coronary artery bypass grafting the better option? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, April 1, 2008; 7(2): 306 - 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. P. Taggart, S. Kaul, W. E. Boden, T. B. Ferguson Jr, R. A. Guyton, M. J. Mack, P. T. Sergeant, R. J. Shemin, P. K. Smith, and S. Yusuf Revascularization for unprotected left main stem coronary artery stenosis stenting or surgery. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 4, 2008; 51(9): 885 - 892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. E. Buszman, S. R. Kiesz, A. Bochenek, E. Peszek-Przybyla, I. Szkrobka, M. Debinski, B. Bialkowska, D. Dudek, A. Gruszka, A. Zurakowski, et al. Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 5, 2008; 51(5): 538 - 545. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. S. Teirstein Unprotected Left Main Intervention: Patient Selection, Operator Technique, and Clinical Outcomes J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., February 1, 2008; 1(1): 5 - 13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N Melikian and W Wijns Drug-eluting stents: a critique Heart, February 1, 2008; 94(2): 145 - 152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Palmerini, F. Barlocco, A. Santarelli, L. Bacchi-Reggiani, C. Savini, E. Baldini, L. Alessi, M. Ruffini, G. Di Credico, G. Piovaccari, et al. A comparison between coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and drug eluting stent for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in elderly patients (aged >=75 years) Eur. Heart J., November 2, 2007; 28(22): 2714 - 2719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Fleisher, J. A. Beckman, K. A. Brown, H. Calkins, E. L. Chaikof, K. E. Fleischmann, W. K. Freeman, J. B. Froehlich, E. K. Kasper, J. R. Kersten, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, and Society for Vascular Surgery J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 23, 2007; 50(17): e159 - e242. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Fleisher, J. A. Beckman, K. A. Brown, H. Calkins, E. L. Chaikof, K. E. Fleischmann, W. K. Freeman, J. B. Froehlich, E. K. Kasper, J. R. Kersten, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) Circulation, October 23, 2007; 116(17): e418 - e500. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. A Khattab, C. W Hamm, J. Senges, R. Toelg, V. Geist, T. Bonzel, M. Kelm, B. Levenson, F.-J. Neumann, C. A Nienaber, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stent treatment for unprotected versus protected left main coronary artery disease in widespread clinical routine: 6-month and 3-year clinical follow-up results from the prospective multicentre German Cypher Registry Heart, October 1, 2007; 93(10): 1251 - 1255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Colombo and A. Chieffo Drug-Eluting Stent Update 2007: Part III: Technique and Unapproved/Unsettled Indications (Left Main, Bifurcations, Chronic Total Occlusions, Small Vessels and Long Lesions, Saphenous Vein Grafts, Acute Myocardial Infarctions, and Multivessel Disease) Circulation, September 18, 2007; 116(12): 1424 - 1432. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.-W. Park, C. W. Lee, S.-C. Yun, Y.-H. Kim, M.-K. Hong, J.-J. Kim, S.-W. Park, and S.-J. Park Prognostic impact of preprocedural C reactive protein levels on 6-month angiographic and 1-year clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation Heart, September 1, 2007; 93(9): 1087 - 1092. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. W. Stone, J. W. Moses, and M. B. Leon Left Main Drug-Eluting Stents: Natural Progression or a Bridge Too Far? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 7, 2007; 50(6): 498 - 500. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Erglis, I. Narbute, I. Kumsars, S. Jegere, I. Mintale, I. Zakke, U. Strazdins, and A. Saltups A Randomized Comparison of Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents for Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 7, 2007; 50(6): 491 - 497. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Chieffo, S. J. Park, M. Valgimigli, Y. H. Kim, J. Daemen, I. Sheiban, A. Truffa, M. Montorfano, F. Airoldi, G. Sangiorgi, et al. Favorable Long-Term Outcome After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Nonbifurcation Lesions That Involve Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery: A Multicenter Registry Circulation, July 10, 2007; 116(2): 158 - 162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Bonvini, V. Verin, and U. Sigwart Unprotected Left Main Disease: Stent or Surgery? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 17, 2006; 48(8): 1727 - 1728. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. B. Barner Status of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., September 1, 2006; 30(3): 419 - 424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Kimmelstiel Multislice Computed Tomography After Left Main Drug-Eluting Stenting: Are We Putting the CarT Before the Horse? Circulation, August 15, 2006; 114(7): 616 - 619. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. S. Mintz and N. J. Weissman Intravascular Ultrasound in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 1, 2006; 48(3): 421 - 429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.-K. Hong, G. S. Mintz, C. W. Lee, D.-W. Park, B.-R. Choi, K.-H. Park, Y.-H. Kim, S.-S. Cheong, J.-K. Song, J.-J. Kim, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors of angiographic restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation Eur. Heart J., June 1, 2006; 27(11): 1305 - 1310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authors/Task Force Members, K. Fox, M. A. A. Garcia, D. Ardissino, P. Buszman, P. G. Camici, F. Crea, C. Daly, G. De Backer, P. Hjemdahl, et al. Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary: The Task Force on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris of the European Society of Cardiology Eur. Heart J., June 1, 2006; 27(11): 1341 - 1381. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Kereiakes and D. P. Faxon Left Main Coronary Revascularization at the Crossroads Circulation, May 30, 2006; 113(21): 2480 - 2484. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Chieffo, N. Morici, F. Maisano, E. Bonizzoni, J. Cosgrave, M. Montorfano, F. Airoldi, M. Carlino, I. Michev, G. Melzi, et al. Percutaneous Treatment With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Versus Bypass Surgery for Unprotected Left Main Stenosis: A Single-Center Experience Circulation, May 30, 2006; 113(21): 2542 - 2547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Hoye, I. Iakovou, L. Ge, C. A.G. van Mieghem, A. T.L. Ong, J. Cosgrave, G. M. Sangiorgi, F. Airoldi, M. Montorfano, I. Michev, et al. Long-Term Outcomes After Stenting of Bifurcation Lesions With the "Crush" Technique: Predictors of an Adverse Outcome J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 16, 2006; 47(10): 1949 - 1958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Valgimigli, P. Malagutti, G. A. Rodriguez-Granillo, H. M. Garcia-Garcia, J. Polad, K. Tsuchida, E. Regar, W. J. Van der Giessen, P. de Jaegere, P. De Feyter, et al. Distal Left Main Coronary Disease Is a Major Predictor of Outcome in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Intervention in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era: An Integrated Clinical and Angiographic Analysis Based on the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) and Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) Registries J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 18, 2006; 47(8): 1530 - 1537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Dixon, C. L. Grines, and W. W. O'Neill The Year in Interventional Cardiology J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 18, 2006; 47(8): 1689 - 1706. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
