Journal of cardiology · 2013
Long-term outcomes following off-label use of sirolimus-eluting stent.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Kotani Jun-ichi, Ikari Yuji, Kyo Eishou, Nakamura Masato, Yokoi Hiroyoshi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the impact of off-label use of drug-eluting stent (DES) on 5-year outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Studies on the outcomes of on- vs. off-label use of DES have been limited by the duration of observation.
METHODS: We analyzed 1937 patients from a multicenter registry that includes 95% of patients with 5-year follow-up data. We defined 10 variables as off-label indications according to the manufacturer's instructions for use, and 1665 of 1937 patients (86.0%) met the criteria for at least 1 off-label indication.
RESULTS: At 5 years, there were no differences in the rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis between off-label and on-label use. The frequency of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), non-TL but target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target vessel failure were higher in the off-label only during the first year. Among the off-label, having 2 indications was associated with TVR hazard ratio (HR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (95%CI), 1.09-2.36 and TLR (HR, 1.90; 95%CI, 1.30-2.85). Moreover, having ≥3 off-label indications increased the risk of MACE (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.23-2.40) compared with on-label use. Thrombosis rates increased with the number of off-label indications; it was 0.32% with 1, 0.69% with 2, and 3.54% with ≥3 off-label indications (p<0.001). This trend was also seen with other outcomes, except for non-TL TVR. Patients with ≥3 off-label indications had a remarkably different clinical course.
CONCLUSION: Off-label use did not increase rates of death and MI as compared with on-label use, but the number of off-label indications influenced outcomes at 5 years.
BACKGROUND: Studies on the outcomes of on- vs. off-label use of DES have been limited by the duration of observation.
METHODS: We analyzed 1937 patients from a multicenter registry that includes 95% of patients with 5-year follow-up data. We defined 10 variables as off-label indications according to the manufacturer's instructions for use, and 1665 of 1937 patients (86.0%) met the criteria for at least 1 off-label indication.
RESULTS: At 5 years, there were no differences in the rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis between off-label and on-label use. The frequency of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), non-TL but target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target vessel failure were higher in the off-label only during the first year. Among the off-label, having 2 indications was associated with TVR hazard ratio (HR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (95%CI), 1.09-2.36 and TLR (HR, 1.90; 95%CI, 1.30-2.85). Moreover, having ≥3 off-label indications increased the risk of MACE (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.23-2.40) compared with on-label use. Thrombosis rates increased with the number of off-label indications; it was 0.32% with 1, 0.69% with 2, and 3.54% with ≥3 off-label indications (p<0.001). This trend was also seen with other outcomes, except for non-TL TVR. Patients with ≥3 off-label indications had a remarkably different clinical course.
CONCLUSION: Off-label use did not increase rates of death and MI as compared with on-label use, but the number of off-label indications influenced outcomes at 5 years.