DOI 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.05.054
Safety and efficacy outcomes of overlapping second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation drug-eluting stents.
Аннотация
The safety and efficacy outcomes of stent overlap with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have not been well established. This study aimed to compare the 1-year clinical outcomes of overlapping everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with those of overlapping first-generation DES. This retrospective analysis included 350 patients treated with overlapping EES (169 patients with 237 lesions), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES, 102 patients with 252 lesions), or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES, 79 patients with 182 lesions). End points were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization), target vessel revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis at 1 year. During a follow-up of 1 year, overall MACE occurred in 6.5% of EES-, 16.8% of SES-, and 10.1% of PES-treated patients (p = 0.026). Myocardial infarction was lowest in the EES group versus SES and PES groups (0 vs 1.0% vs 2.5%, respectively; p = 0.080), and mortality was similar (3.6% vs 9.0% vs 5.1%, p = 0.162). The EES patients showed a trend toward lower rates of 1-year target lesion revascularization (3.1% vs 8.2% vs 6.5%, p = 0.181) and target vessel revascularization (3.7% vs 9.1% vs 11.7%, p = 0.051) compared with the SES- and PES-treated patients. The cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was lowest in the EES group (0 for EES vs 3.9% for SES vs 2.5% for PES, p = 0.014). In conclusion, stent overlap with EES versus first-generation DES was associated with lower rates of MACE and stent thrombosis. Our results suggest that the use of EES when deploying overlapping stents is effective and safe.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.