Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2018
Long-term efficacy of drug coated balloons compared with new generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions.
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.
Venetsanos Dimitrios, Lawesson Sofia Sederholm, Panayi Georgios, Tödt Tim, Berglund Ulf, Swahn Eva, Alfredsson Joakim
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing drug coated balloons (DCB) with new generation drug-eluting stents (nDES) for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions are lacking.
METHODS: From 2009 to 2016, DCB or nDES used for treatment of de novo coronary lesions at our institution were included, in total 1,197 DEB and 6,458 nDES. We evaluated target lesions restenosis (TLR) and definite target lesion thrombosis (TLT). Propensity score modeling were utilized to study adjusted associations between treatment and outcomes.
RESULTS: Median follow-up was 901days. DCB patients were older, with higher cardiovascular risk profile. Bailout stenting after DCB was performed in 8% of lesions. The cumulative rate of TLR and TLT was 7.0 vs. 4.9% and 0.2 vs. 0.8% for DCB vs. nDES, respectively. Before adjustment, DCB was associated with a higher risk of TLR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.94] and a non-significantly lower risk of TLT (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.07-1.24), compared to nDES. In the propensity matched population consisted of 1,197 DCB and 1,197 nDES, treatment with DCB was associated with similar risk for TLR (adjusted HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.72-1.53) but significantly lower risk for TLT (adjusted HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.82) compared to nDES.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with DCB was associated with a similar risk of TLR and a lower risk of definite TLT compared with nDES. In selected cases, DCB appears as a good alternative to nDES for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.
METHODS: From 2009 to 2016, DCB or nDES used for treatment of de novo coronary lesions at our institution were included, in total 1,197 DEB and 6,458 nDES. We evaluated target lesions restenosis (TLR) and definite target lesion thrombosis (TLT). Propensity score modeling were utilized to study adjusted associations between treatment and outcomes.
RESULTS: Median follow-up was 901days. DCB patients were older, with higher cardiovascular risk profile. Bailout stenting after DCB was performed in 8% of lesions. The cumulative rate of TLR and TLT was 7.0 vs. 4.9% and 0.2 vs. 0.8% for DCB vs. nDES, respectively. Before adjustment, DCB was associated with a higher risk of TLR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.94] and a non-significantly lower risk of TLT (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.07-1.24), compared to nDES. In the propensity matched population consisted of 1,197 DCB and 1,197 nDES, treatment with DCB was associated with similar risk for TLR (adjusted HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.72-1.53) but significantly lower risk for TLT (adjusted HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.82) compared to nDES.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with DCB was associated with a similar risk of TLR and a lower risk of definite TLT compared with nDES. In selected cases, DCB appears as a good alternative to nDES for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.