Journal of vascular surgery · 2026
Dual Pathway Inhibition versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with Acute or nonacute Limb Ischemia: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis from the RESOLVE Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Yuli, Liu Yang, He Chunshui, Li Qiang, Shi Zhengyu, Feng Zibo, Wu Ziheng, Guo Lianrui, Zhang Lan, Ye Meng
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Real-world evidence comparing dual-pathway inhibition (DPI) with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after endovascular revascularization for acute or nonacute limb ischemia is limited. This study aims to compare the 24-month effectiveness and safety outcomes of DPI versus DAPT in this setting.
METHODS: This prospective, multicenter observational study from the RESOLVE registry used propensity score matching (PSM) to analyze patients receiving DPI or DAPT after endovascular revascularization. The primary endpoint was 24-month major adverse events (MAE) including recurrent acute limb ischemia, major amputation, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death. Secondary endpoints included major adverse limb events (MALE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and all-cause death.
RESULTS: After PSM, 109 matched pairs were analyzed. The DPI group had significantly lower 24-month MAE incidence than the DAPT group (11.47% vs 28.45%; HR = 2.83; P < .01), as well as lower MALE (16.83% vs 28.40%; HR = 1.83; P = .04) and all-cause death (2.94% vs 11.65%; HR = 4.28; P = .02). MACE showed a trend toward lower incidence with DPI (2.00% vs 7.77%; HR = 4.22; P = .07). No major bleeding events were observed in either group. Modified SVS run-off score >10 and chronic limb-threatening ischemia predicted greater DPI benefit (P for interaction=.020 and .031).
CONCLUSIONS: In this PSM analysis, DPI was associated with significantly lower 24-month rates of MAE, MALE, and all-cause death compared with DAPT. No major bleeding events were observed in either group. These findings suggest a potentially favorable efficacy profile for DPI but warrant confirmation in further randomized controlled trials.
METHODS: This prospective, multicenter observational study from the RESOLVE registry used propensity score matching (PSM) to analyze patients receiving DPI or DAPT after endovascular revascularization. The primary endpoint was 24-month major adverse events (MAE) including recurrent acute limb ischemia, major amputation, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death. Secondary endpoints included major adverse limb events (MALE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and all-cause death.
RESULTS: After PSM, 109 matched pairs were analyzed. The DPI group had significantly lower 24-month MAE incidence than the DAPT group (11.47% vs 28.45%; HR = 2.83; P < .01), as well as lower MALE (16.83% vs 28.40%; HR = 1.83; P = .04) and all-cause death (2.94% vs 11.65%; HR = 4.28; P = .02). MACE showed a trend toward lower incidence with DPI (2.00% vs 7.77%; HR = 4.22; P = .07). No major bleeding events were observed in either group. Modified SVS run-off score >10 and chronic limb-threatening ischemia predicted greater DPI benefit (P for interaction=.020 and .031).
CONCLUSIONS: In this PSM analysis, DPI was associated with significantly lower 24-month rates of MAE, MALE, and all-cause death compared with DAPT. No major bleeding events were observed in either group. These findings suggest a potentially favorable efficacy profile for DPI but warrant confirmation in further randomized controlled trials.