Journal of interventional cardiology · 2015
Comparisons of everolimus and Paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
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.
Chen Kang-Yin, Rha Seung-Woon, Li Yong-Jian, Li Guang-Ping, Oh Dong Joo, Jeong Myung Ho, Kim Young Jo, Hur Seung Ho, Bae Jang Ho, Ahn Tae Hoon, Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It has been established that the newer-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) is superior to the first-generation DES paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). However, the advantages of EES over PES in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) need to be fully elucidated.
METHODS: The present analysis enrolled 2,911 AMI patients receiving PES (n = 1,210) or EES (n = 1,701) in a large-scale, prospective, multicenter Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for baseline biases in clinical and angiographic characteristics, yielding a total of 2,398 patients (1,199 receiving PES and 1,199 receiving EES). Various clinical outcomes at 1 year were compared between the two propensity score matched groups. Target lesion failure (TLF) was defined as the composite of cardiac death, recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction (Re-MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR).
RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable between the two groups after propensity score matching. Clinical outcomes of the propensity score matched patients showed that the rates of in-hospital and 1-year cardiac and all-cause death were similar between the two groups. But patients in the EES group had significantly lower incidences of Re-MI (1.4% vs 2.8%, P = 0.002), TLR (1.2% vs 3.1%, P = 0.001), TLF (6.4% vs 10.2%, P = 0.001), and probable or definite stent thrombosis (0.3% vs 1.8%, P < 0.001) than did those in the PES group.
CONCLUSIONS: The present propensity matched analysis suggests that the use of EES in the setting of AMI appears to be superior to PES in reducing TLF, and stent thrombosis.
METHODS: The present analysis enrolled 2,911 AMI patients receiving PES (n = 1,210) or EES (n = 1,701) in a large-scale, prospective, multicenter Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for baseline biases in clinical and angiographic characteristics, yielding a total of 2,398 patients (1,199 receiving PES and 1,199 receiving EES). Various clinical outcomes at 1 year were compared between the two propensity score matched groups. Target lesion failure (TLF) was defined as the composite of cardiac death, recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction (Re-MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR).
RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable between the two groups after propensity score matching. Clinical outcomes of the propensity score matched patients showed that the rates of in-hospital and 1-year cardiac and all-cause death were similar between the two groups. But patients in the EES group had significantly lower incidences of Re-MI (1.4% vs 2.8%, P = 0.002), TLR (1.2% vs 3.1%, P = 0.001), TLF (6.4% vs 10.2%, P = 0.001), and probable or definite stent thrombosis (0.3% vs 1.8%, P < 0.001) than did those in the PES group.
CONCLUSIONS: The present propensity matched analysis suggests that the use of EES in the setting of AMI appears to be superior to PES in reducing TLF, and stent thrombosis.