Cardiovascular Division, Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury, MA, USA.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Feb 1;77(2):202-12. doi: 10.1002/ccd.22750.
To compare the long-term risks of coronary bifurcation lesions treated with side-branch stenting using drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents.
Side-branch stenting is an off-label practice, but when needed, the incidence of late adverse events may differ between drug-eluting and bare-metal stents.
We systematically searched PubMed, and the National Institutes of Health and Cochrane Registries for studies of coronary bifurcation stenting reporting clinical outcomes over at least 5 months. Data were extracted and cross checked independently by two investigators for inclusion in an observational meta-analysis. Clinical outcomes included major adverse clinical events (MACE), death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and definite stent thrombosis. We used random-effects models and meta-regression in 6,825 subjects from 42 studies.
Most (79%) of the heterogeneity in MACE between treatment groups was explained by differences in stent type, side-branch stenting, and length of follow-up. Compared with drug-eluting stents without side-branch stenting, drug-eluting stents with side-branch stenting had a 3% higher incidence of myocardial infarction [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.3%, 5%, P < 0.05], but no significant increase in MACE, death, TVR, or stent thrombosis. Bare-metal stenting without side-branch stenting had 10% (95% CI = 3%, 16%, P < 0.01) higher MACE, and 10% (95% CI = 4%, 17%, P < 0.01) higher TVR, whereas bare-metal side-branch stenting had 31% (95% CI = 23%, 39%, P < 0.001) higher MACE, and 19% (95% CI = 10%, 28%, P < 0.001) higher TVR.
Side-branch stenting has a much smaller impact on long-term MACE with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents. Although this study does not support routine side-branch stenting, when side-branch stenting is required, drug-eluting stents are associated with less adverse outcomes.
比较使用药物洗脱支架和裸金属支架治疗冠状动脉分叉病变的长期风险。
边支支架置入术是一种超适应证的治疗方法,但当需要时,药物洗脱支架和裸金属支架的晚期不良事件发生率可能不同。
我们系统地检索了 PubMed 以及美国国立卫生研究院和 Cochrane 注册中心的研究,这些研究报告了至少 5 个月的冠状动脉分叉支架置入术的临床结果。数据由两名研究人员独立提取和交叉核对,纳入观察性荟萃分析。临床结局包括主要不良临床事件(MACE)、死亡、心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建(TVR)和明确的支架内血栓形成。我们使用随机效应模型和荟萃回归分析了来自 42 项研究的 6825 例患者。
治疗组之间 MACE 异质性的大部分(79%)可以用支架类型、边支支架置入术和随访时间的差异来解释。与无边支支架置入术的药物洗脱支架相比,有边支支架置入术的药物洗脱支架发生心肌梗死的风险增加 3%[95%置信区间(CI)=0.3%,5%,P <0.05],但 MACE、死亡、TVR 或支架内血栓形成无显著增加。无边支支架置入术的裸金属支架的 MACE 增加 10%(95%CI=3%,16%,P <0.01),TVR 增加 10%(95%CI=4%,17%,P <0.01),而有边支支架置入术的裸金属支架的 MACE 增加 31%(95%CI=23%,39%,P <0.001),TVR 增加 19%(95%CI=10%,28%,P <0.001)。
与裸金属支架相比,边支支架置入术对药物洗脱支架长期 MACE 的影响要小得多。虽然本研究不支持常规边支支架置入术,但当需要边支支架置入术时,药物洗脱支架与较少的不良结局相关。