MedElevator
Войти в исследования Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2025
Drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents for small non-complex de novo coronary artery lesions: A segment-level propensity score matched analysis from SCAAR.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
von Koch Sacharias, Tödt Johannes, Zhou Mikael, Petursson Petur, Persson Jonas, Jurga Juliane, Zwackman Sammy, Sarno Giovanna, Koul Sasha, Erlinge David, Mohammad Moman A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The REC-CAGEFREE trial showed that drug-coated balloons (DCB) did not achieve non-inferiority in the treatment of non-complex de novo lesion compared to a strategy of drug-eluting stents (DES). However, a prespecified subgroup analysis of arteries sized <3.0 mm revealed no difference in the device-oriented outcome compared to DES. The aim of present study was to validate that finding in a real-world registry by comparing DCB and DES in non-complex lesions with arteries <3.0 mm.
METHODS: The Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty registry (SCAAR) was used to identify all segments with small non-complex coronary artery lesions treated with DCB or DES between January 2016 and May 2024. One-to-one propensity score (PS) matching was used to address confounding. The primary outcome comprised the composite of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and all-cause mortality after 5 years. Outcome was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and univariable Cox proportional analysis.
RESULTS: After PS-matching, 1439 pairs of DCB and DES treated segments where formed and baseline characteristics were similar across the two groups. Compared to DCB, treatment with DES was associated with lower rates of the primary outcome 19.2 % vs 14.7 % (HR, 0.76; 95 % CI, 0.61-0.95; P = 0.016) and TV-MI 3.4 % vs 1.3 % (HR, 0.52; 95 % CI, 0.29-0.94; P = 0.029). No statistically significant difference was observed for TLR or all-cause mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide observational segment-level analysis comparing the use of DCB to DES on small (<3.0 mm) non-complex coronary artery lesions, DES was associated lower rates of the primary composite outcome.
METHODS: The Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty registry (SCAAR) was used to identify all segments with small non-complex coronary artery lesions treated with DCB or DES between January 2016 and May 2024. One-to-one propensity score (PS) matching was used to address confounding. The primary outcome comprised the composite of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and all-cause mortality after 5 years. Outcome was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and univariable Cox proportional analysis.
RESULTS: After PS-matching, 1439 pairs of DCB and DES treated segments where formed and baseline characteristics were similar across the two groups. Compared to DCB, treatment with DES was associated with lower rates of the primary outcome 19.2 % vs 14.7 % (HR, 0.76; 95 % CI, 0.61-0.95; P = 0.016) and TV-MI 3.4 % vs 1.3 % (HR, 0.52; 95 % CI, 0.29-0.94; P = 0.029). No statistically significant difference was observed for TLR or all-cause mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide observational segment-level analysis comparing the use of DCB to DES on small (<3.0 mm) non-complex coronary artery lesions, DES was associated lower rates of the primary composite outcome.