JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2010
The unrestricted use of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents results in better clinical outcomes during 6-year follow-up than bare-metal stents: an analysis of the RESEARCH (Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital) and T-SEARCH (Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital) registries.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Simsek Cihan, Magro Michael, Boersma Eric, Onuma Yoshinobu, Nauta Sjoerd T, Gaspersz Marcia P, van der Giessen Willem J, van Domburg Ron T, Serruys Patrick W, Interventional Cardiologists of the Thoraxcenter
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the 6-year clinical outcome after unrestricted use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) as compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in consecutive de novo patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
BACKGROUND: SES and PES have been shown to significantly decrease target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates compared with BMS in "real-world" registries. However, possible higher rates of very-late stent thrombosis and a restenosis "catch-up" trend might jeopardize the benefit.
METHODS: Three PCI cohorts, each with exclusive use of 1 stent type (BMS = 450; SES = 508; PES = 576), were systematically followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
RESULTS: Very-late stent thrombosis was more common in SES and PES patients than BMS patients (2.4% vs. 0.9% vs. 0.4%, respectively; p = 0.02); however, there were no significant differences between the stent types for all-cause mortality and all-cause mortality/myocardial infarction at 6-year follow-up. Sixty-nine SES patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate 14%) and 72 PES patients (14%) had a TVR, as compared with 79 BMS patients (18%; log-rank p = 0.02), which maintained significance after adjustment for (potential) confounders. Multivariate analysis showed that DES implantation is associated with lower incidence of TVR and MACE than BMS implantation (hazard ratio: 0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.86; p = 0.003; hazard ratio: 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.65 to 0.97; p = 0.02, respectively). Incidence of MACE was also lower in SES and PES patients (30% and 30%, respectively) than in BMS patients (34%); however, significance was borderline.
CONCLUSIONS: The unrestricted use of both DES resulted in a sustained advantage in decreasing TVR and, to a lesser extent, MACE compared with BMS at 6 years. The SES and PES are equally safe and effective in the treatment of coronary lesions.
BACKGROUND: SES and PES have been shown to significantly decrease target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates compared with BMS in "real-world" registries. However, possible higher rates of very-late stent thrombosis and a restenosis "catch-up" trend might jeopardize the benefit.
METHODS: Three PCI cohorts, each with exclusive use of 1 stent type (BMS = 450; SES = 508; PES = 576), were systematically followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
RESULTS: Very-late stent thrombosis was more common in SES and PES patients than BMS patients (2.4% vs. 0.9% vs. 0.4%, respectively; p = 0.02); however, there were no significant differences between the stent types for all-cause mortality and all-cause mortality/myocardial infarction at 6-year follow-up. Sixty-nine SES patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate 14%) and 72 PES patients (14%) had a TVR, as compared with 79 BMS patients (18%; log-rank p = 0.02), which maintained significance after adjustment for (potential) confounders. Multivariate analysis showed that DES implantation is associated with lower incidence of TVR and MACE than BMS implantation (hazard ratio: 0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.86; p = 0.003; hazard ratio: 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.65 to 0.97; p = 0.02, respectively). Incidence of MACE was also lower in SES and PES patients (30% and 30%, respectively) than in BMS patients (34%); however, significance was borderline.
CONCLUSIONS: The unrestricted use of both DES resulted in a sustained advantage in decreasing TVR and, to a lesser extent, MACE compared with BMS at 6 years. The SES and PES are equally safe and effective in the treatment of coronary lesions.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCardiovascular AgentsChi-Square DistributionCoronary Artery DiseaseDrug-Eluting StentsFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMetalsMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionNetherlandsPaclitaxelProportional Hazards ModelsProsthesis DesignRegistriesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSirolimusStentsThrombosisTime FactorsTreatment Outcome