International journal of cardiology · 2019
A paradox in sex-specific clinical outcomes after bioresorbable scaffold implantation: 2-year results from the AIDA trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеEquivalence TrialНазвание 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.
Kerkmeijer Laura S M, Tijssen Ruben Y G, Hofma Sjoerd H, Pinxterhuis Tineke H, Kraak Robin P, Kalkman Deborah N, van der Schaaf Rene J, Arkenbout E Karin, Weevers Auke P J D, Beijk Marcel A, Baan Jan, Vis M Marije, Koch Karel T, Tijssen Jan G P, Piek Jan J, Henriques Jose P S, de Winter Robbert J, Wykrzykowska Joanna J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies whilst results may differ between the sexes. Females are known to have smaller, more tortuous coronary arteries and have generally more comorbidities. On the other hand, they may have smaller plaque burden. This subgroup-analysis sought to assess sex-specific outcomes after Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation.
METHODS: The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1845 patients were randomly assigned to either Absorb BVS or XIENCE EES. Baseline clinical, angiography and procedural variables, as well as 2-year clinical outcomes were analyzed by sex and device modality.
RESULTS: Of the 1845 randomized patients, 475 (25.7%) were females. The 2-year rates of target vessel failure (TVF) with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in females were 6.4% versus 10.6% (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.31-1.11; p = 0.10) and in males 12.7% versus 9.7% (HR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.98-1.85; p = 0.07). Males treated with Absorb BVS were at higher risk for TVF compared to females treated with Absorb BVS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.21-3.53; p = 0.007). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred in females with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in 1.6% versus 1.4% (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.26-5.12; p = 0.86) and in males 3.9% versus 0.7% (HR 5.55; 95% CI: 2.11-14.35; p < 0.001). A statistical significant interaction between sex and device was present for TVF (p = 0.02), but was not seen for definite/probable device thrombosis (p = 0.08).
CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis, Absorb BVS used in routine practice tends to result in better clinical outcomes in females compared to males.
METHODS: The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1845 patients were randomly assigned to either Absorb BVS or XIENCE EES. Baseline clinical, angiography and procedural variables, as well as 2-year clinical outcomes were analyzed by sex and device modality.
RESULTS: Of the 1845 randomized patients, 475 (25.7%) were females. The 2-year rates of target vessel failure (TVF) with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in females were 6.4% versus 10.6% (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.31-1.11; p = 0.10) and in males 12.7% versus 9.7% (HR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.98-1.85; p = 0.07). Males treated with Absorb BVS were at higher risk for TVF compared to females treated with Absorb BVS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.21-3.53; p = 0.007). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred in females with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in 1.6% versus 1.4% (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.26-5.12; p = 0.86) and in males 3.9% versus 0.7% (HR 5.55; 95% CI: 2.11-14.35; p < 0.001). A statistical significant interaction between sex and device was present for TVF (p = 0.02), but was not seen for definite/probable device thrombosis (p = 0.08).
CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis, Absorb BVS used in routine practice tends to result in better clinical outcomes in females compared to males.