Suppr超能文献

糖尿病患者接受直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗时药物洗脱支架与裸金属支架的比较:证据是什么?

Comparison of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents in patients with diabetes undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: what is the evidence?

作者信息

Gollop Nicholas D, Henderson Duncan B H, Flather Marcus D

机构信息

The Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK.

出版信息

Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014 Jan;18(1):112-6. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt454. Epub 2013 Oct 20.

Abstract

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was, should the practising interventional cardiologist use drug-eluting stents (DESs) or bare-metal stents (BMSs) when undertaking primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients. The relevant outcomes that were used to determine the answer to this question included: in-stent restenosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), mortality, myocardial infarction and in-stent thrombosis. The OVID Medline database was used to carry out the reported search for abstracts of relevant journal articles. Altogether 102 papers were found, of which 7 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. From the evidence available, we conclude that in-stent restenosis is less likely to occur over a follow-up of at least 6 months if a DES is used instead of a BMS. Furthermore, TVR is less likely to be required in diabetic patients who receive a DES in comparison with a BMS. Nevertheless, no significant difference in mortality between stents was detected by the studies reviewed. This included no difference in the incidence of cardiac and non-cardiac causes of death. There was evidence showing that DESs are associated with a decrease in the risk of myocardial infarction and, in particular, a decrease in non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. However, there was also conflicting evidence demonstrating no significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction between diabetic patients who had received a BMS or a DES. Moreover, the available evidence showed no significant difference in the risk of in-stent thrombosis for all DESs with the exception of Sirolimus eluting stents in which the evidence was not consistent. In summary, the available evidence supports the use of DESs over BMSs in diabetic patients undergoing primary PCI.

摘要

根据结构化方案撰写了一篇最佳证据主题。所探讨的问题是,执业介入心脏病专家在对糖尿病患者进行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)时,应使用药物洗脱支架(DES)还是裸金属支架(BMS)。用于确定该问题答案的相关结局包括:支架内再狭窄、靶血管重建(TVR)、死亡率、心肌梗死和支架内血栓形成。使用OVID Medline数据库对相关期刊文章的摘要进行了检索。共找到102篇论文,其中7篇代表了回答该临床问题的最佳证据。这些论文的作者、期刊、发表日期和国家、所研究的患者组、研究类型、相关结局及结果均列于表格中。根据现有证据,我们得出结论:在至少6个月的随访期内,使用DES而非BMS时,支架内再狭窄的发生可能性较小。此外,与BMS相比,接受DES的糖尿病患者需要进行TVR的可能性较小。然而,在所审查的研究中未检测到两种支架在死亡率方面存在显著差异。这包括心脏和非心脏死因的发生率均无差异。有证据表明,DES与心肌梗死风险降低相关,尤其是非Q波心肌梗死的发生率降低。然而,也有相互矛盾的证据表明,接受BMS或DES的糖尿病患者在心肌梗死发生率方面无显著差异。此外,现有证据表明,除西罗莫司洗脱支架的证据不一致外,所有DES在支架内血栓形成风险方面无显著差异。总之,现有证据支持在接受直接PCI的糖尿病患者中使用DES而非BMS。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

7

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验