The Journal of invasive cardiology · 2012
Comparison of twelve-month outcomes after percutanous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting versus zotarolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents from the PROENCY (PROmus ENdeavor CYpher) registry.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Damman Peter, Abdel-Wahab Mohamed, Möllmann Helge, Richardt Gert, Chevalier Bernard, Barragan Paul, Tijssen Jan G P, Underwood Paul, Hamm Christian W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We compared safety and efficacy outcomes of 3 limus-based drug-eluting stents in the 'all-comers' PROENCY (PROmus/ENdeavor/CYpher) registry.
BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on head-to-head comparisons of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the sirolimus- eluting stent (SES) in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.
METHODS: PROENCY was a prospective, open-label, multicenter, observational study including consecutive patients undergoing planned treatment with EES, ZES, or SES. Seventeen centers were designated to place an EES or SES, 14 other centers were designated to place EES or ZES. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 12 months. Unadjusted and propensity-adjusted outcomes were compared between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 1921 patients were enrolled in the study from February to December 2008, of which 1704 patients received only study stents and were analyzed. At 12 months, the unadjusted major adverse event rate was significantly lower in the EES group versus the ZES group (3.1% vs 8.7%; P=.001) and the SES group (5.2% vs 9.6%; P=.01). This was mainly driven by lower TVR rates [2.6% with EES vs 8.2% with ZES [P<.001] and 4.1% with EES vs 7.0% with SES [P=.05]. Stent thrombosis rates were low and comparable. Adjusted analyses confirmed the unadjusted results.
CONCLUSION: There were no differences in safety outcomes of EES, ZES, and SES at 12 months in PROENCY. However, differences in efficacy were observed between the 3 "limus"-based stents in a real-world patient population.
BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on head-to-head comparisons of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the sirolimus- eluting stent (SES) in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.
METHODS: PROENCY was a prospective, open-label, multicenter, observational study including consecutive patients undergoing planned treatment with EES, ZES, or SES. Seventeen centers were designated to place an EES or SES, 14 other centers were designated to place EES or ZES. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 12 months. Unadjusted and propensity-adjusted outcomes were compared between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 1921 patients were enrolled in the study from February to December 2008, of which 1704 patients received only study stents and were analyzed. At 12 months, the unadjusted major adverse event rate was significantly lower in the EES group versus the ZES group (3.1% vs 8.7%; P=.001) and the SES group (5.2% vs 9.6%; P=.01). This was mainly driven by lower TVR rates [2.6% with EES vs 8.2% with ZES [P<.001] and 4.1% with EES vs 7.0% with SES [P=.05]. Stent thrombosis rates were low and comparable. Adjusted analyses confirmed the unadjusted results.
CONCLUSION: There were no differences in safety outcomes of EES, ZES, and SES at 12 months in PROENCY. However, differences in efficacy were observed between the 3 "limus"-based stents in a real-world patient population.