International journal of cardiology · 2010
Comparison of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with renal insufficiency: results from the national registry in Korea.
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.
Kim Kyung-Hee, Koo Bon-Kwon, Min Hee-Suk, Park Sue K, Kim Chi-Hoon, Park Kyung-Woo, Park Byung-Joo, Jeong Myung-Ho, Cho Myeong-Chan, Lee Sang-Rok, Chae Sung-Chull, Seong In-Whan, Choi Dong-Ju, Kim Hyo-Soo
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: It is unknown whether drug-eluting stents (DES), in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS), improve clinical outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with renal insufficiency. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of BMS versus DES, as well as sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), in STEMI patients with renal insufficiency.
METHODS: From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 874 STEMI patients with renal insufficiency (glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min) comprising 116 patients with BMS and 758 patients with DES (430 SES and 328 PES) implantation were selected. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 1 year, defined as composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization were compared. In addition to multivariate adjusted analysis, propensity analysis for stent choice was performed.
RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 342 days, 116 MACE occurred. MACE was more frequent in the BMS group than in the DES group before (HR [95% CI]=2.3 [1.3-3.8]) and after propensity score matching (HR [95% CI]=2.0 [1.0-3.8]). The difference of MACE was mainly driven by a higher rate of target lesion revascularization rate in the BMS group. In comparison between SES and PES, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in propensity score-matched populations (HR [95% CI]=0.7 [0.4-1.1]).
CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients with renal insufficiency, DES implantation exhibits a favorable 1 year clinical outcomes than BMS implantation, however, no difference was found between SES and PES.
METHODS: From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 874 STEMI patients with renal insufficiency (glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min) comprising 116 patients with BMS and 758 patients with DES (430 SES and 328 PES) implantation were selected. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 1 year, defined as composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization were compared. In addition to multivariate adjusted analysis, propensity analysis for stent choice was performed.
RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 342 days, 116 MACE occurred. MACE was more frequent in the BMS group than in the DES group before (HR [95% CI]=2.3 [1.3-3.8]) and after propensity score matching (HR [95% CI]=2.0 [1.0-3.8]). The difference of MACE was mainly driven by a higher rate of target lesion revascularization rate in the BMS group. In comparison between SES and PES, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in propensity score-matched populations (HR [95% CI]=0.7 [0.4-1.1]).
CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients with renal insufficiency, DES implantation exhibits a favorable 1 year clinical outcomes than BMS implantation, however, no difference was found between SES and PES.