Journal of interventional cardiology · 2011
A comparison of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein graft PCI outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализНазвание 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.
Mamas Mamas A, Foley James, Nair Satheesh, Wiper Andrew, Clarke Bernard, El-Omar Magdi, Fraser Douglas G, Khattar Rajdeep, Neyses Ludwig, Fath-Ordoubadi Farzin
Аннотация
AIMS: Studies demonstrate that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) is associated with reduced revascularization and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rates compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in native coronary vessels. Optimal PCI treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remains unclear despite SVG procedures representing up to 10% of PCI cases. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between BMS and DES in SVG PCI.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A search (2004-2009) of MEDLINE and conference proceedings for all relevant studies comparing mortality and MACE outcomes in DES versus BMS in SVG PCI and meta-analysis of the data was performed. Twenty studies were identified from 2005 to 2009 enrolling a total of 5,296 patients. Meta-analysis revealed a decrease in mortality associated with DES use, odds ratio (OR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.88; P = 0.004. Similarly, MACE (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51-0.82; P < 0.001), total lesion revascularization (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43-0.83; P = 0.002), and total vessel revascularization (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.41-0.80; P = 0.001) were significantly decreased in the patients in which DES were used compared to BMS. This reduction in mortality and MACE events associated with DES use appears to be limited to registry studies and not randomized controlled studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests DES use to be safe in SVG PCI and associated with reduced mortality and MACE rates with reductions in revascularization also observed.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A search (2004-2009) of MEDLINE and conference proceedings for all relevant studies comparing mortality and MACE outcomes in DES versus BMS in SVG PCI and meta-analysis of the data was performed. Twenty studies were identified from 2005 to 2009 enrolling a total of 5,296 patients. Meta-analysis revealed a decrease in mortality associated with DES use, odds ratio (OR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.88; P = 0.004. Similarly, MACE (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51-0.82; P < 0.001), total lesion revascularization (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43-0.83; P = 0.002), and total vessel revascularization (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.41-0.80; P = 0.001) were significantly decreased in the patients in which DES were used compared to BMS. This reduction in mortality and MACE events associated with DES use appears to be limited to registry studies and not randomized controlled studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests DES use to be safe in SVG PCI and associated with reduced mortality and MACE rates with reductions in revascularization also observed.