Cardiovascular Research Center (CECI), Sanatorio Otamendi, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
EuroIntervention. 2009 Jun;5(2):255-64. doi: 10.4244/eijv5i2a40.
AIMS: Previous randomised studies have shown a significant reduction in restenosis when oral rapamycin (OR) is administered to patients undergoing bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. How this regimen compares to drug eluting stents (DES) is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two-hundred patients with de novo coronary lesions were randomised to treatment with OR plus BMS (100 pts) or with DES (100 pts). OR was given as a bolus of 10 mg per day before PCI followed by daily doses of 3 mg during following 13 days. Primary endpoints were to compare hospital, follow-up and overall cost at one, two, three and five years of follow-up. The secondary endpoints included death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke and were analysed as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCE). Target vessel (TVR) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) were independently analysed. Costs included procedural resources, hospitalisation, medications, repeat revascularisation procedures and professional fees. Baseline demographic, clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar. At 18.3 +/- 7 months of follow-up, the initial strategy of OR plus BMS resulted in significant cost saving when compared to DES (p=0.0001). TLR rate was 8.2% with DES and 7.0% with OR plus BMS (p=0.84), similarly no differences in TVR rate in both groups was seen (10.6% and 10.5% in OR and DES group respectively, p=0.86). Non-inferiority testing, determined that DES therapy failed to be cost saving compared to OR in all possible cost scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of OR plus BMS is cost saving compared to DES in patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary lesions.
目的:先前的随机研究表明,在接受裸金属支架(BMS)植入的患者中,口服雷帕霉素(OR)可显著降低再狭窄率。但目前尚不清楚这种治疗方案与药物洗脱支架(DES)相比如何。
方法和结果:200 例新发冠状动脉病变患者被随机分为 OR+BMS 治疗组(100 例)或 DES 治疗组(100 例)。OR 在 PCI 前每天给予 10 mg 负荷量,随后在接下来的 13 天内每天给予 3 mg。主要终点是比较 1、2、3 和 5 年随访时的医院、随访和总体成本。次要终点包括死亡、心肌梗死(MI)和中风,并分析为主要不良心血管事件(MACCE)。独立分析了靶血管(TVR)和靶病变血运重建(TLR)。成本包括程序资源、住院、药物、重复血运重建手术和专业费用。基线人口统计学、临床和血管造影特征相似。在 18.3+/-7 个月的随访中,与 DES 相比,OR+BMS 的初始策略可显著节省成本(p=0.0001)。DES 的 TLR 发生率为 8.2%,OR+BMS 组为 7.0%(p=0.84),两组 TVR 发生率无差异(OR 组和 DES 组分别为 10.6%和 10.5%,p=0.86)。非劣效性检验表明,在所有可能的成本情况下,DES 治疗与 OR 相比均未能节省成本。
结论:与 DES 相比,在接受 PCI 治疗新发冠状动脉病变的患者中,OR+BMS 策略可节省成本。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012-3-15
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016-9-21
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011-10-11