The Journal of invasive cardiology · 2017
Drug-Eluting vs Bare-Metal Stents in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Volodarskiy Alexander, Kumar Sunil, Pracon Radoslaw, Sidhu Mandeep, Kretov Evgeny, Mazurek Tomasz, Bockeria Olga, Kaul Upendra, Bangalore Sripal
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Most drug-eluting stent (DES) trials have excluded patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The efficacy of DES implantation in patients with CKD is therefore not known.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes with DES vs bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with CKD.
METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for studies including at least 100 patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤60 mL/min/1.73 m² or on dialysis) treated with DES or BMS and followed for at least 1 month and reporting outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target-vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis (ST). Thirty-one studies (5 randomized) with 91,817 participants (49,081 DES and 42,736 BMS) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. DES was associated with lower all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.84), CV mortality (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.70), MI (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95), TVR (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80), and numerically lower ST (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.55-1.01) when compared with BMS. Analysis by study type (RCTs vs non-RCTs) showed similar results for most outcomes (Pinteraction>.05) except all-cause mortality, where there was no difference between DES vs BMS in RCTs (Pinteraction=.04). The effects were greater with 2nd-generation DES vs BMS (for example, ST: RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.72).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CKD, the available evidence, largely from observational studies, suggests significantly fewer events with DES vs BMS with even a lower ST rate with 2nd-generation DES. These findings should be tested in large, randomized trials.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes with DES vs bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with CKD.
METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for studies including at least 100 patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤60 mL/min/1.73 m² or on dialysis) treated with DES or BMS and followed for at least 1 month and reporting outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target-vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis (ST). Thirty-one studies (5 randomized) with 91,817 participants (49,081 DES and 42,736 BMS) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. DES was associated with lower all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.84), CV mortality (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.70), MI (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95), TVR (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80), and numerically lower ST (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.55-1.01) when compared with BMS. Analysis by study type (RCTs vs non-RCTs) showed similar results for most outcomes (Pinteraction>.05) except all-cause mortality, where there was no difference between DES vs BMS in RCTs (Pinteraction=.04). The effects were greater with 2nd-generation DES vs BMS (for example, ST: RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.72).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CKD, the available evidence, largely from observational studies, suggests significantly fewer events with DES vs BMS with even a lower ST rate with 2nd-generation DES. These findings should be tested in large, randomized trials.