International journal of cardiology · 2013
Everolimus- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (results from the EXCELLENT registry).
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Park Kyung Woo, Lim Woo-Hyun, Ahn Hyo-Suk, Kang Si-Hyuck, Han Jung-Kyu, Lee Sang Eun, Cho Jang-Hyun, Gwon Hyeon-Cheol, Lee Sung Yoon, Rhew Jae-Young, Kim Wan, Chae In-Ho, Kim Hyo-Soo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Data concerning the results of 2nd generation DES in the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of stenting with everolimus- (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis in the "real world" setting.
METHODS: In this multi-center all-comer registry, a total of 275 patients with ULMCA stenosis were analyzed; 160 receiving EES and 115 receiving SES. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 1 year.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the two stent groups. At 1 year, the rate of MACE was comparable between the two groups (7.5% for EES vs. 13.9% for SES, HR: 0.55 [0.26-1.17], p = 0.117). However, after multivariable or propensity score adjustment, the risk of MACE was significantly lower for EES compared with that for SES (multivariable adjusted HR: 0.42 [0.19-0.92], p = 0.030; propensity score-adjusted HR: 0.43 [0.20-0.95], p = 0.037). These results were mainly driven from the numerically lower rate of repeat revascularization in the EES group (2.5% for EES vs. 7.0% for SES, p = 0.096). As for hard endpoint (death or myocardial infarction) and stent thrombosis, no differences were found between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients receiving ULMCA stenting, the MACE rate was numerically lower in the EES compared with that in the SES (statistically significant only after adjustment), which was mainly driven by significantly lower rates of repeat revascularization.
METHODS: In this multi-center all-comer registry, a total of 275 patients with ULMCA stenosis were analyzed; 160 receiving EES and 115 receiving SES. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 1 year.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the two stent groups. At 1 year, the rate of MACE was comparable between the two groups (7.5% for EES vs. 13.9% for SES, HR: 0.55 [0.26-1.17], p = 0.117). However, after multivariable or propensity score adjustment, the risk of MACE was significantly lower for EES compared with that for SES (multivariable adjusted HR: 0.42 [0.19-0.92], p = 0.030; propensity score-adjusted HR: 0.43 [0.20-0.95], p = 0.037). These results were mainly driven from the numerically lower rate of repeat revascularization in the EES group (2.5% for EES vs. 7.0% for SES, p = 0.096). As for hard endpoint (death or myocardial infarction) and stent thrombosis, no differences were found between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients receiving ULMCA stenting, the MACE rate was numerically lower in the EES compared with that in the SES (statistically significant only after adjustment), which was mainly driven by significantly lower rates of repeat revascularization.