Suppr超能文献

用于无保护左主干冠状动脉疾病的紫杉醇洗脱支架与西罗莫司洗脱支架的比较

Paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

作者信息

Mehilli Julinda, Kastrati Adnan, Byrne Robert A, Bruskina Olga, Iijima Raisuke, Schulz Stefanie, Pache Jürgen, Seyfarth Melchior, Massberg Steffen, Laugwitz Karl-Ludwig, Dirschinger Josef, Schömig Albert

机构信息

Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technische Universität, Munich, Germany.

出版信息

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 May 12;53(19):1760-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.01.035.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this trial was to compare the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) disease.

BACKGROUND

Both PES and SES have reduced the risk of restenosis, particularly in high-risk patient and lesion subsets. However, their comparative performance in uLMCA lesions is not known.

METHODS

In this randomized study, 607 patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for uLMCA were enrolled: 302 were assigned to receive a PES (Taxus, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) and 305 assigned to receive a SES (Cypher, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, New Jersey). The primary end point was the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 1 year. The secondary end point was angiographic restenosis on the basis of the LMCA area analysis at follow-up angiography.

RESULTS

At 1 year the cumulative incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or TLR was 13.6% in the PES and 15.8% in the SES group (relative risk [RR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56 to 1.29, p = 0.44). One patient in the PES group (0.3%) and 2 patients in the SES group (0.7%) experienced definite stent thrombosis (p = 0.57). Mortality at 2 years was 10.7% in the PES and 8.7% in the SES group (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.95, p = 0.64). Angiographic restenosis was 16.0% with PES and 19.4% with SES (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.19, p = 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of either PES or SES in uLMCA lesions is safe and effective; both of these drug-eluting stents provide comparable clinical and angiographic outcomes. (Drug-Eluting-Stents for Unprotected Left Main Stem Disease [ISAR-LEFT-MAIN]; NCT00133237).

摘要

目的

本试验旨在比较紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES)和西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)治疗无保护左主干冠状动脉(uLMCA)疾病的安全性和有效性。

背景

PES和SES均降低了再狭窄风险,尤其是在高危患者和病变亚组中。然而,它们在uLMCA病变中的对比表现尚不清楚。

方法

在这项随机研究中,纳入了607例因uLMCA接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的有症状冠状动脉疾病患者:302例被分配接受PES(Taxus,波士顿科学公司,马萨诸塞州纳蒂克),305例被分配接受SES(Cypher,科迪斯公司,强生公司,新泽西州新不伦瑞克)。主要终点是1年时死亡、心肌梗死和靶病变血运重建(TLR)的联合发生率。次要终点是基于随访血管造影时LMCA面积分析的血管造影再狭窄。

结果

1年时,PES组死亡、心肌梗死或TLR的累积发生率为13.6%,SES组为15.8%(相对风险[RR]:0.85,95%置信区间[CI]:0.56至1.29,p = 0.44)。PES组1例患者(0.3%)和SES组2例患者(0.7%)发生明确的支架血栓形成(p = 0.57)。2年时,PES组死亡率为10.7%,SES组为8.7%(RR:1.14,95%CI:0.66至1.95,p = 0.64)。PES组血管造影再狭窄率为16.0%,SES组为19.4%(RR:0.82,95%CI:0.57至1.19,p = 0.30)。

结论

在uLMCA病变中植入PES或SES均安全有效;这两种药物洗脱支架提供了相当的临床和血管造影结果。(无保护左主干疾病的药物洗脱支架[ISAR-LEFT-MAIN];NCT00133237)

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验