Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2015
Clinical outcomes of real-world patients treated with an amphilimus polymer-free stent versus new generation everolimus-eluting stents.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Panoulas Vasileios F, Latib Azeem, Naim Charbel, Sato Katsumasa, Ielasi Alfonso, Tespili Maurizio, Godino Cosmo, Testa Luca, Bedogni Francesco, Colombo Antonio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: To compare the 1-year clinical outcomes after implantation of the amphilimus, polymer-free stent (Cre8) versus new generation everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) in a real-world patient registry.
METHODS: A total of 187 consecutive patients treated with Cre8 between January 2011 and August 2013 in four Italian centers were included. These were propensity matched with 150 patients treated with new generation EES during the same period. Primary outcome was 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.
RESULTS: Both groups had similar baseline characteristics, including diabetes (28% Cre8 vs. 27.3% EES, P = 0.972) and previous percutaneous coronary intervention (56% Cre8 vs. 58% EES, P = 0.726). There was a higher prevalence of B2/C lesions in the EES group (70.1% vs. 83.8%, P < 0.001). Total stent length per patient was similar. There were no significant differences in 1-year estimated MACE (7.4% Cre8 vs. 10.2% EES, P = 0.261), all-cause mortality (1.3% Cre8 vs. 1.4% EES, P = 0.823), target vessel revascularization (5.2% Cre8 vs. 8.8% EES, P = 0.169), and target lesion revascularization (3% Cre8 vs. 7.4% EES, P = 0.108) between the two groups. When adjusting for differences in baseline lesion characteristics, hazard ratio(Cre8/EES) for MACE was not significantly different between the two groups (0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.53, P(noninferiority) = 0.001, P(superiority) = 0.432). In patients with diabetes (Cre8, n = 42; EEE, n = 41), 1-year target lesion revascularization was 2.5% in the Cre8 group versus 14.6% in the EES group (P = 0.056).
CONCLUSIONS: In a "real-world" patient registry, the Cre8 stent is associated with noninferior 1-year MACE rates compared with that of new generation EES. Trends of superior efficacy in patients with diabetes treated with Cre8 require further investigation.
METHODS: A total of 187 consecutive patients treated with Cre8 between January 2011 and August 2013 in four Italian centers were included. These were propensity matched with 150 patients treated with new generation EES during the same period. Primary outcome was 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.
RESULTS: Both groups had similar baseline characteristics, including diabetes (28% Cre8 vs. 27.3% EES, P = 0.972) and previous percutaneous coronary intervention (56% Cre8 vs. 58% EES, P = 0.726). There was a higher prevalence of B2/C lesions in the EES group (70.1% vs. 83.8%, P < 0.001). Total stent length per patient was similar. There were no significant differences in 1-year estimated MACE (7.4% Cre8 vs. 10.2% EES, P = 0.261), all-cause mortality (1.3% Cre8 vs. 1.4% EES, P = 0.823), target vessel revascularization (5.2% Cre8 vs. 8.8% EES, P = 0.169), and target lesion revascularization (3% Cre8 vs. 7.4% EES, P = 0.108) between the two groups. When adjusting for differences in baseline lesion characteristics, hazard ratio(Cre8/EES) for MACE was not significantly different between the two groups (0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.53, P(noninferiority) = 0.001, P(superiority) = 0.432). In patients with diabetes (Cre8, n = 42; EEE, n = 41), 1-year target lesion revascularization was 2.5% in the Cre8 group versus 14.6% in the EES group (P = 0.056).
CONCLUSIONS: In a "real-world" patient registry, the Cre8 stent is associated with noninferior 1-year MACE rates compared with that of new generation EES. Trends of superior efficacy in patients with diabetes treated with Cre8 require further investigation.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedCardiovascular AgentsCoronary Artery DiseaseDrug-Eluting StentsEverolimusFemaleHumansItalyKaplan-Meier EstimateLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisMyocardial InfarctionOdds RatioPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPolymersPrevalencePropensity ScoreProsthesis DesignRegistriesRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment Outcome