Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Crush and Culotte techniques have been used increasingly to treat patients with complex unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions. This article compares published data on these two techniques.
Methods: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, were searched for articles published before Aug 21, 2019 to identify all relevant studies on left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions treated by Crush versus Culotte techniques. The pooled data were analyzed using either fixed- or random-effects model depending on heterogeneity (assessed via the I2 index). The endpoints were major adverse cardiac events, target lesion revascularization, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization.
Results: Eight articles with a total of 1,283 patients were included, and 710 patients were treated with Crush, and 573 ones with Culotte. Crush group was trend to decreased major adverse cardiac event compared with Culotte group [Relative ratio (RR) 0.63,95% confidence interval(CI) 0.39-1.04, I2 =72.7%], mainly driven by decreased cardiac death [RR 0.49, 95% CI(0.25-0.99), I2 =0%], decreased myocardial infarction [RR 0.40, 95% CI(0.21-0.76), I2 =21.6%],and lower stent thrombosis [RR 0.39, 95% CI(0.16-0.98), I2 =39.4%]. There was no significant difference in target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization between Crush and Culotte [RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.46-1.28, I2=61.1%; RR 0.78, 95% CI (0.30-2.02), I2 =73.1%, respectively].
Conclusion: Crush was superior to Culotte for treatment of left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions with a trend of lower incidence of long-term major adverse cardiac events, mainly derived from decreased myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and cardiac death.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.25011/cim.v43i2.34048 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!