Evidence Hub

A study of unprotected left main intervention in the ACS population 2013-2018

Sarma VRSS, Gopalakrishna K, Purnachandra Rao K, Somasekahr G, Chowdary PSS, Raghuram P, Boochibabu M, Sasidhar Y et al.

Indian heart journal, 2021

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate the outcomes of left main percutaneous coronary interventions in Acute Coronary Syndrome population.

METHODS: This is a retrospective& observational study. Primary endpoint is a composite of death, stent thrombosis/MI, target lesion revascularization. Secondary endpoints include individual components of the primary events analyzed separately.

RESULTS: Seventy five patients, two year follow - up data was analyzed. The primary event analysis showed that the Elective Double Stent (EDS) group had a higher primary events (36% vs. 14%, p value - 0.008, Hazard ratio - 0.76 (0.51-1.15, 95% CI), in secondary event analysis stent thrombosis (ST)/Myocardial infarction (MI) rates were higher in EDS group (8% Vs 36%, p Value - 0.008, Hazard ratio- 0.63(0.35-1.14, 95%CI), there is no difference in target lesion revascularization (TLR)and death rates in both the groups.

CONCLUSIONS: The provisional strategy is better than EDS in treatment of left main bifurcation lesions in the ACS population.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free