International journal of cardiology · 2011
Comparison between zotarolimus-eluting stents and first generation drug-eluting stents in the treatment of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
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.
Park Kyung Woo, Lim Woo-Hyun, Kim Ji-Hyun, Kang Si-Hyuck, Seo Jung-Won, Song Young Bin, Hahn Joo-Yong, Lee Hae-Young, Kang Hyun-Jae, Cho Young-Seok, Youn Tae-Jin, Koo Bon-Kwon, Choi Seung-Hyuk, Chae In-ho, Gwon Hyeon-Cheol, Choi Dong-Ju, Kim Hyo-Soo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the two year efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and first-generation DES, sirolimus- (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), in an all-comer registry receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
METHODS: A total of 711 consecutive STEMI patients (ZES: 135, SES: 427, and PES: 149), who underwent primary PCI between January 2005 and June 2008 were enrolled from three centers. In our study, the efficacy analysis endpoint was target vessel failure (cardiac death, target vessel related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) at 2 years. The safety analysis endpoint was a composite of all cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis within 2 years.
RESULTS: At 2 years, the rates of target vessel failure in the ZES, SES, and PES groups were 14.8%, 12.9%, and 19.5%, respectively (p=0.141). The rates of composite safety endpoints at 2 years were not different among the three groups (ZES 8.1% vs. SES 13.1% vs. PES 16.8%, p=0.102). However, when comparing the two groups, ZES was safer than PES (adjusted HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24-0.98, p=0.046). There was also a non-significant trend in favor of ZES in the rate of stent thrombosis (ZES 1.5% vs. SES 2.3% vs. PES 4.7%, p=0.186).
CONCLUSION: In the treatment of STEMI patients, ZES showed similar and acceptable efficacy compared to first-generation DES (SES and PES) up to 2 years. In addition, ZES seems to be more favorable than PES in terms of safety.
METHODS: A total of 711 consecutive STEMI patients (ZES: 135, SES: 427, and PES: 149), who underwent primary PCI between January 2005 and June 2008 were enrolled from three centers. In our study, the efficacy analysis endpoint was target vessel failure (cardiac death, target vessel related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) at 2 years. The safety analysis endpoint was a composite of all cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis within 2 years.
RESULTS: At 2 years, the rates of target vessel failure in the ZES, SES, and PES groups were 14.8%, 12.9%, and 19.5%, respectively (p=0.141). The rates of composite safety endpoints at 2 years were not different among the three groups (ZES 8.1% vs. SES 13.1% vs. PES 16.8%, p=0.102). However, when comparing the two groups, ZES was safer than PES (adjusted HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24-0.98, p=0.046). There was also a non-significant trend in favor of ZES in the rate of stent thrombosis (ZES 1.5% vs. SES 2.3% vs. PES 4.7%, p=0.186).
CONCLUSION: In the treatment of STEMI patients, ZES showed similar and acceptable efficacy compared to first-generation DES (SES and PES) up to 2 years. In addition, ZES seems to be more favorable than PES in terms of safety.