The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2013
Difference in clinical target lesion revascularization between a silicon carbide-coated and an uncoated thin strut bare-metal stent: the PRO-Vision study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Haine Steven E, Cornez Barbara M, Jacobs Jimmy M, Miljoen Hielko P, Vandendriessche Tom R, Claeys Marc J, Bosmans Johan M, Vrints Christiaan J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bare-metal stents trigger a foreign body reaction, resulting in neointima formation and restenosis. Silicon carbide (SiC) coating shields the metal from circulating blood and vessel wall, both potential sources of neointima smooth muscle cells.
METHODS: We investigated whether SiC-coated stents (PRO-Kinetic) have lower clinical target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates than do uncoated bare-metal stents (Vision). Stents were implanted in 2731 patients during 2 consecutive 18-month periods. Clinical TLR was evaluated at 1 year.
RESULTS: In the PRO-Kinetic group, TLR was significantly higher (9.0% vs 5.6%; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-2.08; P < 0.001) compared with the Vision group. After adjustment for postintervention minimal luminal diameter (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.73), total implanted stent length (AOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina at initial presentation (AOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.41-2.54), and triple vessel stenting (AOR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.02-7.05), the use of PRO-Kinetic stents remained an independent predictor for revascularization (AOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.18-2.10; P = 0.002). Because strut thickness is lower in 2.0- to 3.0-mm PRO-Kinetic stents, a subgroup analysis (n = 2382 lesions) was performed. Even in this subgroup, PRO-Kinetic implantation proved an independent predictor of TLR (AOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.23; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: In contrast to theoretical expectations, the SiC-coated PRO-Kinetic stent was associated with greater target lesion revascularization rates at 1 year compared with the uncoated Vision stent.
METHODS: We investigated whether SiC-coated stents (PRO-Kinetic) have lower clinical target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates than do uncoated bare-metal stents (Vision). Stents were implanted in 2731 patients during 2 consecutive 18-month periods. Clinical TLR was evaluated at 1 year.
RESULTS: In the PRO-Kinetic group, TLR was significantly higher (9.0% vs 5.6%; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-2.08; P < 0.001) compared with the Vision group. After adjustment for postintervention minimal luminal diameter (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.73), total implanted stent length (AOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina at initial presentation (AOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.41-2.54), and triple vessel stenting (AOR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.02-7.05), the use of PRO-Kinetic stents remained an independent predictor for revascularization (AOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.18-2.10; P = 0.002). Because strut thickness is lower in 2.0- to 3.0-mm PRO-Kinetic stents, a subgroup analysis (n = 2382 lesions) was performed. Even in this subgroup, PRO-Kinetic implantation proved an independent predictor of TLR (AOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.23; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: In contrast to theoretical expectations, the SiC-coated PRO-Kinetic stent was associated with greater target lesion revascularization rates at 1 year compared with the uncoated Vision stent.