PloS one · 2020
One-year efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds in the setting of acute myocardial infarction.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Kim Yongcheol, Bae SungA, Jeong Myung Ho, Ahn Youngkeun, Kim Chong Jin, Cho Myeong Chan, Baumbach Andreas, Gogas Bill D, King Spencer B, Other Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare clinical outcomes between bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
METHODS: From March 2016 to October 2017, 952 patients with AMI without cardiogenic shock undergoing successful PCI with BRS (n = 136) or DP-EES (n = 816) were enrolled from a multicenter, observational Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.
RESULTS: In the crude population, there was no significant difference in the 1-year rate of device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) and device thrombosis between the BRS and DP-EES groups (2.2% vs. 4.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.41, p = 0.163; 0.7% vs. 0.5%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.16-13.4, p = 0.719, respectively). BRS implantation was opted in younger patients (53.7 vs. 62.6 years, p < 0.001) with low-risk profiles, and intravascular image-guided PCI was more preferred in the BRS group (60.3% vs. 27.2%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year follow-up, no differences in the rate of DOCE and device thrombosis were observed between patients with AMI treated with BRS and those treated with DP-EES. Our data suggest that imaging-guided BRS implantation in young patients with low risk profiles could be a reasonable strategy in the setting of AMI.
METHODS: From March 2016 to October 2017, 952 patients with AMI without cardiogenic shock undergoing successful PCI with BRS (n = 136) or DP-EES (n = 816) were enrolled from a multicenter, observational Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.
RESULTS: In the crude population, there was no significant difference in the 1-year rate of device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) and device thrombosis between the BRS and DP-EES groups (2.2% vs. 4.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.41, p = 0.163; 0.7% vs. 0.5%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.16-13.4, p = 0.719, respectively). BRS implantation was opted in younger patients (53.7 vs. 62.6 years, p < 0.001) with low-risk profiles, and intravascular image-guided PCI was more preferred in the BRS group (60.3% vs. 27.2%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year follow-up, no differences in the rate of DOCE and device thrombosis were observed between patients with AMI treated with BRS and those treated with DP-EES. Our data suggest that imaging-guided BRS implantation in young patients with low risk profiles could be a reasonable strategy in the setting of AMI.