Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2013
Outcomes of small coronary artery stenting with bare-metal stents versus drug-eluting stents: results from the NHLBI Dynamic Registry.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Parikh Shailja V, Luna Michael, Selzer Faith, Marroquin Oscar C, Mulukutla Suresh R, Abbott J Dawn, Holper Elizabeth M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Examine 1-year outcomes of patients with small coronary arteries in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry (NHLBI) undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) vs. bare-metal stent (BMS) placement.
BACKGROUND: While randomized trials of DES vs. BMS demonstrate reduced target vessel revascularization, it is unclear whether similar outcomes are seen in unselected patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for small coronary arteries.
METHODS: Utilizing patients from the NHLBI Registry Waves 1-3 for BMS (1997-2002) and Waves 4-5 for DES (2004 and 2006), demographic, angiographic, in-hospital, and 1-year outcome data of patients with small coronary arteries treated with BMS (n = 686) vs. DES (n = 669) were evaluated. Small coronary artery was defined as 2.50-3.00 mm in diameter.
RESULTS: Compared to BMS-treated patients, the mean lesion length of treated lesions was longer in the DES treated group (16.7 vs. 13.1 mm, P < 0.001) and the mean reference vessel size of attempted lesions was smaller (2.6 vs. 2.7 mm, P < 0.001). Adjusted analyses of 1-year outcomes revealed that DES patients were at lower risk to undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.95, P = 0.04), repeat PCI (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.82, P = 0.004), and experience the combined major adverse cardiovascular event rate (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42-0.83, P = 0.002). There was no difference in the risk of death and myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46-1.35, P = 0.38).
CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world registry, patients with small coronary arteries treated with DES had significantly lower rates of repeat revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year compared to patients treated with BMS, with no increase in the risk of death and MI. These data confirm the efficacy and safety of DES over BMS in the treatment of small coronary arteries in routine clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: While randomized trials of DES vs. BMS demonstrate reduced target vessel revascularization, it is unclear whether similar outcomes are seen in unselected patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for small coronary arteries.
METHODS: Utilizing patients from the NHLBI Registry Waves 1-3 for BMS (1997-2002) and Waves 4-5 for DES (2004 and 2006), demographic, angiographic, in-hospital, and 1-year outcome data of patients with small coronary arteries treated with BMS (n = 686) vs. DES (n = 669) were evaluated. Small coronary artery was defined as 2.50-3.00 mm in diameter.
RESULTS: Compared to BMS-treated patients, the mean lesion length of treated lesions was longer in the DES treated group (16.7 vs. 13.1 mm, P < 0.001) and the mean reference vessel size of attempted lesions was smaller (2.6 vs. 2.7 mm, P < 0.001). Adjusted analyses of 1-year outcomes revealed that DES patients were at lower risk to undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.95, P = 0.04), repeat PCI (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.82, P = 0.004), and experience the combined major adverse cardiovascular event rate (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42-0.83, P = 0.002). There was no difference in the risk of death and myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46-1.35, P = 0.38).
CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world registry, patients with small coronary arteries treated with DES had significantly lower rates of repeat revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year compared to patients treated with BMS, with no increase in the risk of death and MI. These data confirm the efficacy and safety of DES over BMS in the treatment of small coronary arteries in routine clinical practice.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Coronary Artery DiseaseCoronary RestenosisDrug-Eluting StentsFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMetalsMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U.S.)Percutaneous Coronary InterventionProportional Hazards ModelsProsthesis DesignRegistriesRisk FactorsStentsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited States