MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.10.014

Медицинская библиотека · JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2014

Comparative effectiveness of commonly used devices for carotid artery stenting: an NCDR Analysis (National Cardiovascular Data Registry).

Giri Jay, Kennedy Kevin F, Weinberg Ido, Hawkins Beau M, Press Marcella Calfon, Drachman Douglas, McCormick Daniel J, Aronow Herbert D, White Christopher J, Rosenfield Kenneth, Yeh Robert W

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to characterize usage and outcomes of carotid stenting platforms.

BACKGROUND

A variety of stents and embolic protection devices (EPDs) are used for carotid artery stenting. Little is known about current usage patterns and differences in outcomes with these devices.

METHODS

We analyzed 12,135 consecutive carotid stent procedures in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) CARE (Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) registry performed between January 1, 2007 and March 31, 2012. We compared baseline characteristics and crude and multivariable-adjusted rates of in-hospital combined death/stroke among patients treated with Acculink/Accunet (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois), Xact/Emboshield (Abbott), and Precise/Angioguard (Cordis Corporation, Bridgewater, New Jersey) stent/EPD combinations.

RESULTS

In 78.2% of cases, stents were used in conjunction with their specific, corresponding U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved EPD. The Acculink/Accunet (n = 2,617, 21.6%), Xact/Emboshield (n = 3,507, 28.9%), and Precise/Angioguard (n = 2,696, 22.2%) stent/EPD combinations were used in 72.7% of all cases. The Protégé/SpiderFx (ev3 Endovascular Inc., Plymouth, Minnesota) (n = 453, 3.7%) and Wallstent/Filterwire (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) (n = 213, 1.8%) devices were used in a minority of cases. In unadjusted analyses, the Precise/Angioguard system was associated with higher rates of the primary outcome than were the Acculink/Accunet (2.5% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.058) and Xact/Emboshield (2.5% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.14) systems that were not statistically different. In adjusted analyses, differences between Precise/Angioguard and Accunet/Acculink (odds ratio [OR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 2.47; p = 0.065), Precise/Angioguard and Xact/Emboshield (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.76; p = 0.38), and Xact/Emboshield and Accunet/Acculink (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.97; p = 0.18) remained nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

In modern U.S. practice, the Acculink/Accunet, Xact/Emboshield, and Precise/Angioguard carotid stenting systems are used in most cases and are associated with similarly low rates of adverse events.

Для цитирования: Giri Jay, Kennedy Kevin F, Weinberg Ido, Hawkins Beau M, Press Marcella Calfon, Drachman Douglas, McCormick Daniel J, Aronow Herbert D, White Christopher J, Rosenfield Kenneth, Yeh Robert W. Comparative effectiveness of commonly used devices for carotid artery stenting: an NCDR Analysis (National Cardiovascular Data Registry).. JACC. Cardiovascular interventions. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.10.014.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.