EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2013
Long-term outcome of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents and Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents in a prospective registry of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Velders Matthijs A, Boden Helèn, van der Hoeven Bas L, Liem Su-San, Atary Jaël Z, van der Wall Ernst E, Jukema J Wouter, Schalij Martin J
Аннотация
AIMS: The optimal drug-eluting stent (DES) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients remains unclear. We sought to compare the long-term performance of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents (E-ZES) in STEMI.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The current analysis of a prospective registry included consecutive patients treated with EES or E-ZES for STEMI. Adjustment for measured confounders was done using Cox regression. In total, 931 patients met the inclusion criteria (412 EES and 519 E-ZES). Baseline characteristics were balanced, apart from a lower rate of renal insufficiency in EES. Median follow-up duration was 2.4 years (IQR 1.6-3.1). Mortality outcomes were similar. Up to three-year follow-up, the composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) was lower in EES; 9.7% vs. 13.7% in E-ZES (HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42-0.99), primarily driven by reduced TLR rates; 3.4% in EES vs. 7.3% in E-ZES (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23-0.92). Definite stent thrombosis rates were low and similar between groups (1.1% in EES vs. 1.9% in E-ZES, p=0.190).
CONCLUSIONS: Use of EES led to lower rates of the composite endpoint, driven by reduced TLR. This suggests that EES are more efficacious than Endeavor ZES in STEMI. Definite ST rates were low, and the strategy of second-generation DES implantation and the administration of upfront GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors appear to be safe in STEMI.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The current analysis of a prospective registry included consecutive patients treated with EES or E-ZES for STEMI. Adjustment for measured confounders was done using Cox regression. In total, 931 patients met the inclusion criteria (412 EES and 519 E-ZES). Baseline characteristics were balanced, apart from a lower rate of renal insufficiency in EES. Median follow-up duration was 2.4 years (IQR 1.6-3.1). Mortality outcomes were similar. Up to three-year follow-up, the composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) was lower in EES; 9.7% vs. 13.7% in E-ZES (HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42-0.99), primarily driven by reduced TLR rates; 3.4% in EES vs. 7.3% in E-ZES (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23-0.92). Definite stent thrombosis rates were low and similar between groups (1.1% in EES vs. 1.9% in E-ZES, p=0.190).
CONCLUSIONS: Use of EES led to lower rates of the composite endpoint, driven by reduced TLR. This suggests that EES are more efficacious than Endeavor ZES in STEMI. Definite ST rates were low, and the strategy of second-generation DES implantation and the administration of upfront GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors appear to be safe in STEMI.