Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2019
One-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stents or zotarolimus-eluting stents: A propensity-score adjusted analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Rozemeijer Rik, van Muiden Ivar G, Koudstaal Stefan, Leenders Geert E, Timmers Leo, Rittersma Saskia Z, Kraaijeveld Adriaan O, Doevendans Pieter A, Voskuil Michiel, Stella Pieter R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stents (PF-AES) represent a novel elution-technology in coronary stenting. We aimed to assess 1-year clinical outcomes of PF-AES as compared to latest-generation permanent polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (PP-ZES) in a real-world all-comers setting.
METHODS: A prospective registry of patients treated with either PF-AES or PP-ZES between 2014 and 2016 was conducted. The primary outcome was defined as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and the secondary outcome was defined as target-lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year. To account for measured confounders, a propensity-score adjusted Cox proportional-hazard model was built to evaluate clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 734 consecutive patients with 1,269 DES implantations were enrolled. The population was characterized by 28% diabetes, 24% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and a high number of complex lesions (69%). The rate of MACCE was 11.5% for PF-AES and 13.6% for PP-ZES, plog-rank = 0.11. TLF was numerically lower in PF-AES as compared to PP-ZES (5.4 vs. 6.1%, plog-rank = 0.68). After propensity-score adjustment, PF-AES showed a trend toward a lower rate of MACCE and a favorable rate of TLF as compared to PP-ZES (HR 0.70; 95%CI 0.45 to 1.10, P = 0.12; and HR 0.88; 95%CI 0.47 to 1.65, P = 0.68, respectively). Rates of definite ST were low (0.8 vs. 0.3%, plog-rank = 0.62).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that implantation of PF-AES was safe and effective in real-world patients, with low-rates of MACCE and TLF at 1 year. Our data needs to be confirmed by a large trial to evaluate the clinical outcomes of this novel polymer-free, eluting-technology used in PF-AES.
METHODS: A prospective registry of patients treated with either PF-AES or PP-ZES between 2014 and 2016 was conducted. The primary outcome was defined as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and the secondary outcome was defined as target-lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year. To account for measured confounders, a propensity-score adjusted Cox proportional-hazard model was built to evaluate clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 734 consecutive patients with 1,269 DES implantations were enrolled. The population was characterized by 28% diabetes, 24% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and a high number of complex lesions (69%). The rate of MACCE was 11.5% for PF-AES and 13.6% for PP-ZES, plog-rank = 0.11. TLF was numerically lower in PF-AES as compared to PP-ZES (5.4 vs. 6.1%, plog-rank = 0.68). After propensity-score adjustment, PF-AES showed a trend toward a lower rate of MACCE and a favorable rate of TLF as compared to PP-ZES (HR 0.70; 95%CI 0.45 to 1.10, P = 0.12; and HR 0.88; 95%CI 0.47 to 1.65, P = 0.68, respectively). Rates of definite ST were low (0.8 vs. 0.3%, plog-rank = 0.62).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that implantation of PF-AES was safe and effective in real-world patients, with low-rates of MACCE and TLF at 1 year. Our data needs to be confirmed by a large trial to evaluate the clinical outcomes of this novel polymer-free, eluting-technology used in PF-AES.