Chinese medical journal · 2009
Two-year clinical outcomes following elective drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation: results from a large single-center database.
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.
Gao Run-lin, Xu Bo, Chen Ji-lin, Yang Yue-jin, Qiao Shu-bin, Wang Yang, Dou Ke-fei, Qin Xue-wen, Yao Min, Liu Hai-bo, Wu Yong-jian, Yuan Jin-qing, Chen Jue, You Shi-jie, Dai Jun, Ma Wei-hua, Li Wei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In response to the increasing concern with the safety of the drug-eluting stent (DES), the present study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of DES used for a Chinese patient population.
METHODS: All patients, who underwent an index elective percutaneous coronary intervention with an implantation of either DES or bare-metal stent (BMS) in a single institution from April 2004 to December 2006, were included in the analysis. A propensity-score matching technique was applied to adjust and to minimize the impact of confounding factors.
RESULTS: Overall, there were 1465 patients (20.2%) who had undergone an implantation of only BMS, and 5769 patients (79.8%) of only DES. The propensity-score matching technique set up 1321 pairs of patients for analysis. There were no significant differences between the rates of stent thrombosis (definite and probable) of the two groups (1.06% vs 1.21%, P = 0.8580). Although rates of mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) during the 2-year follow-up period had not differed significantly, rates of death/MI (3.0% vs 4.5%, P = 0.0263), target-lesion revascularization (TLR, 3.2% vs 8.5, P = 0.0001), target-vessel revascularization (TVR, 5.8% vs 9.5%, P < 0.0001) and any revascularization (10.0% vs 13.3%, P = 0.0066) were significantly lower for the DES group than for the BMS group. Among the patients in whom devices were implanted for off-label indications, the propensity-score matched rates of stent thrombosis, mortality, MI, and death/MI were not significantly different, while rates of TLR, TVR and any revascularization were significantly lower for the DES group than for the BMS group.
CONCLUSIONS: During the 2 years of follow-up post stenting, DES use is associated with lower rates of death/MI, TLR, TVR and any revascularization, compared with BMS, in propensity-score matched Chinese patient populations. In the setting of off-label usage, DES use is also associated with similar advantages.
METHODS: All patients, who underwent an index elective percutaneous coronary intervention with an implantation of either DES or bare-metal stent (BMS) in a single institution from April 2004 to December 2006, were included in the analysis. A propensity-score matching technique was applied to adjust and to minimize the impact of confounding factors.
RESULTS: Overall, there were 1465 patients (20.2%) who had undergone an implantation of only BMS, and 5769 patients (79.8%) of only DES. The propensity-score matching technique set up 1321 pairs of patients for analysis. There were no significant differences between the rates of stent thrombosis (definite and probable) of the two groups (1.06% vs 1.21%, P = 0.8580). Although rates of mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) during the 2-year follow-up period had not differed significantly, rates of death/MI (3.0% vs 4.5%, P = 0.0263), target-lesion revascularization (TLR, 3.2% vs 8.5, P = 0.0001), target-vessel revascularization (TVR, 5.8% vs 9.5%, P < 0.0001) and any revascularization (10.0% vs 13.3%, P = 0.0066) were significantly lower for the DES group than for the BMS group. Among the patients in whom devices were implanted for off-label indications, the propensity-score matched rates of stent thrombosis, mortality, MI, and death/MI were not significantly different, while rates of TLR, TVR and any revascularization were significantly lower for the DES group than for the BMS group.
CONCLUSIONS: During the 2 years of follow-up post stenting, DES use is associated with lower rates of death/MI, TLR, TVR and any revascularization, compared with BMS, in propensity-score matched Chinese patient populations. In the setting of off-label usage, DES use is also associated with similar advantages.