Coronary artery disease · 2021
REabsorbable vs. DUrable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in All-Comer PatiEnts: the REDUCE registry.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Piccirillo Francesco, Caiazzo Gianluca, Miglionico Marco, Nusca Annunziata, Melfi Rosetta, Gallo Paolo, Ricottini Elisabetta, De Michele Mario, Golino Luca, Manganiello Vincenzo, Fattore Luciano, Mangiacapra Fabio, Di Sciascio Germano
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: While the superiority of reabsorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents (RP-DES) over bare-metal stents and first-generation durable-polymer (DP)-DES has been largely established, their advantage compared with new-generation DP-DES is still controversial. This study aimed was to compare clinical outcomes of all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new generation DP-DES or RP-DES implantation.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 679 consecutive patients treated with PCI with RP-DES or DP-DES. The primary endpoint was the 1-year incidence of major adverse clinical events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Target lesion revascularization (TLR) and definite stent thrombosis were also recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 439 (64.6%) received RP-DES and 240 (36.4%) received DP-DES. No significant difference in the incidence of MACE (5.9 vs. 4.9%; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-2.49; P = 0.569), death (1.8 vs. 1.7%; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.33-3.64; P = 0.882), MI (2.3 vs. 2.1%; hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.36-3.08; P = 0.927), TVR (2.3 vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.47-6.20; P = 0.418), TLR (1.4 vs. 0.4%; hazard ratio, 3.06; 95% CI, 0.37-25.40; P = 0.301), and definite stent thrombosis (0.5 vs. 0.4%; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.10-12.10; P = 0.942) was observed between RP-DES and DP-DES patients at 1-year follow-up. These results were confirmed in a propensity score-matched cohort (n = 134 per group).
CONCLUSION: In our registry including a real-world population of all-comer patients undergoing PCI, RP-DES, or durable polymer-DES showed similar efficacy and safety at a 1-year follow-up.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 679 consecutive patients treated with PCI with RP-DES or DP-DES. The primary endpoint was the 1-year incidence of major adverse clinical events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Target lesion revascularization (TLR) and definite stent thrombosis were also recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 439 (64.6%) received RP-DES and 240 (36.4%) received DP-DES. No significant difference in the incidence of MACE (5.9 vs. 4.9%; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-2.49; P = 0.569), death (1.8 vs. 1.7%; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.33-3.64; P = 0.882), MI (2.3 vs. 2.1%; hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.36-3.08; P = 0.927), TVR (2.3 vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.47-6.20; P = 0.418), TLR (1.4 vs. 0.4%; hazard ratio, 3.06; 95% CI, 0.37-25.40; P = 0.301), and definite stent thrombosis (0.5 vs. 0.4%; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.10-12.10; P = 0.942) was observed between RP-DES and DP-DES patients at 1-year follow-up. These results were confirmed in a propensity score-matched cohort (n = 134 per group).
CONCLUSION: In our registry including a real-world population of all-comer patients undergoing PCI, RP-DES, or durable polymer-DES showed similar efficacy and safety at a 1-year follow-up.