Chang Tara I, Montez-Rath Maria E, Tsai Thomas T, Hlatky Mark A, Winkelmayer Wolfgang C
Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Mar 29;67(12):1459-1469. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.104.
In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce repeat revascularizations compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), but their effects on death and myocardial infarction (MI) are mixed. Few studies have focused on patients with end-stage renal disease.
This study compared mortality and cardiovascular morbidity during percutaneous coronary intervention with DES and with BMS in dialysis patients.
We identified 36,117 dialysis patients from the USRDS (United States Renal Data System) who had coronary stenting in the United States between April 23, 2003, and December 31, 2010, and examined the association of DES versus BMS with 1-year outcomes: death; death or MI; and death, MI, or repeat revascularization. We also conducted a temporal analysis by dividing the study period into 3 DES eras: Transitional (April 23, 2003, to June 30, 2004); Liberal (July 1, 2004, to December 31, 2006); and Selective (January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2010).
One-year event rates were high, with 38 deaths; 55 death or MI events; and 71 death, MI, or repeat revascularization events per 100 person-years. DES, compared with BMS, were associated with a significant 18% lower risk of death; 16% lower risk of death or MI; and 13% lower risk of death, MI, or repeat revascularization. DES use varied, from 56% in the Transitional era to 85% in the Liberal era and 62% in the Selective era. DES outcomes in the Liberal era were significantly better than in the Transitional Era, but not significantly better than in the Selective Era.
DES for percutaneous coronary intervention appears to be safe for use in U.S. dialysis patients and is associated with lower rates of death, MI, and repeat revascularization.
在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者中,与裸金属支架(BMS)相比,药物洗脱支架(DES)可减少再次血管重建,但它们对死亡和心肌梗死(MI)的影响不一。很少有研究关注终末期肾病患者。
本研究比较了透析患者接受DES和BMS进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗期间的死亡率和心血管发病率。
我们从美国肾脏数据系统(USRDS)中识别出36117例在2003年4月23日至2010年12月31日期间在美国进行冠状动脉支架置入的透析患者,并研究了DES与BMS与1年结局的关联:死亡;死亡或心肌梗死;以及死亡、心肌梗死或再次血管重建。我们还通过将研究期分为3个DES时代进行了时间分析:过渡时代(2003年4月23日至2004年6月30日);宽松时代(2004年7月1日至2006年12月31日);以及选择性时代(2007年1月1日至2010年12月31日)。
1年事件发生率很高,每100人年有38例死亡;55例死亡或心肌梗死事件;以及71例死亡、心肌梗死或再次血管重建事件。与BMS相比,DES与死亡风险显著降低18%;死亡或心肌梗死风险降低16%;以及死亡、心肌梗死或再次血管重建风险降低13%相关。DES的使用情况各不相同,从过渡时代的56%到宽松时代的85%和选择性时代的62%。宽松时代的DES结局显著优于过渡时代,但并不显著优于选择性时代。
用于经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的DES在美国透析患者中似乎使用安全,并与较低的死亡、心肌梗死和再次血管重建发生率相关。