JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2010
Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание 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.
Pandya Sanjay B, Kim Young-Hak, Meyers Sheridan N, Davidson Charles J, Flaherty James D, Park Duk-Woo, Mediratta Anuj, Pieper Karen, Reyes Eric, Bonow Robert O, Park Seung-Jung, Beohar Nirat
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We undertook a meta-analysis to assess outcomes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis.
BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists regarding the relative performance of DES versus BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary stenosis.
METHODS: Of a total of 838 studies, 44 met inclusion criteria (n = 10,342). The co-primary end points were mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: mortality, MI, TVR/TLR).
RESULTS: Event rates for DES and BMS were calculated at 6 to 12 months, at 2 years, and at 3 years. Crude event rates at 3 years were mortality (8.8% and 12.7%), MI (4.0% and 3.4%), TVR/TLR (8.0% and 16.4%), and MACE (21.4% and 31.6%). Nine studies were included in a comparative analysis (n = 5,081). At 6 to 12 months the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06 to 15.48; p = 0.97), MI 0.64 (95% CI: 0.19 to 2.17; p = 0.47), TVR/TLR 0.10 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.84; p = 0.01), and MACE 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.78; p = 0.01). At 2 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.42 (95% CI: 0.28 to 0.62; p < 0.01), MI 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01 to 3.53; p = 0.13), and MACE 0.31 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.66; p < 0.01). At 3 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.92; p = 0.01), MI 0.49 (95% CI: 0.26 to 0.92; p = 0.03), TVR/TLR 0.46 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.69; p < 0.01), and MACE 0.78 (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.07; p = 0.12).
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that DES is associated with favorable outcomes for mortality, MI, TVR/TLR, and MACE as compared to BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.
BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists regarding the relative performance of DES versus BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary stenosis.
METHODS: Of a total of 838 studies, 44 met inclusion criteria (n = 10,342). The co-primary end points were mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: mortality, MI, TVR/TLR).
RESULTS: Event rates for DES and BMS were calculated at 6 to 12 months, at 2 years, and at 3 years. Crude event rates at 3 years were mortality (8.8% and 12.7%), MI (4.0% and 3.4%), TVR/TLR (8.0% and 16.4%), and MACE (21.4% and 31.6%). Nine studies were included in a comparative analysis (n = 5,081). At 6 to 12 months the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06 to 15.48; p = 0.97), MI 0.64 (95% CI: 0.19 to 2.17; p = 0.47), TVR/TLR 0.10 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.84; p = 0.01), and MACE 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.78; p = 0.01). At 2 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.42 (95% CI: 0.28 to 0.62; p < 0.01), MI 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01 to 3.53; p = 0.13), and MACE 0.31 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.66; p < 0.01). At 3 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.92; p = 0.01), MI 0.49 (95% CI: 0.26 to 0.92; p = 0.03), TVR/TLR 0.46 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.69; p < 0.01), and MACE 0.78 (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.07; p = 0.12).
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that DES is associated with favorable outcomes for mortality, MI, TVR/TLR, and MACE as compared to BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.