Suppr超能文献

ABSORB生物可吸收血管支架治疗冠状动脉疾病的有效性和安全性:随机临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Effectiveness and safety of the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold for the treatment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

作者信息

Pavasini Rita, Serenelli Matteo, Gallo Francesco, Bugani Giulia, Geraci Salvatore, Vicinelli Paolo, Campo Gianluca

机构信息

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.

Cardiology Unit, Ospedale S.Giovanni di Dio, Agrigento, Italy.

出版信息

J Thorac Dis. 2017 Aug;9(Suppl 9):S887-S897. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.06.59.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In the last years bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) become a new therapeutic option for interventional cardiologists, with the advantage of a scaffold inducing a possible vessel wall restoration. Nevertheless, several trials tried to prove the safety and efficacy profile of scaffolds, but with conflicting results.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The search was carried out in PubMed, Google Scholar, Biomed Central and Cochrane Library between January and March 2017. Inclusion criteria: randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing the Absorb BVS versus durable polymer cobalt-chromium Everolimus Eluting Stent. The outcomes analysed were all-cause mortality, cardiac death, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion failure (TLF)/device oriented composite endpoints (DOCE), and device thrombosis. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed. Data were expressed as odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

Overall 5,674 patients were included (mean age 62.2±1.31 in drug eluting stents (DES) group 62±1,47 in BVS group; P=0.942). DOCE (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.90-1.48; P=0.259, I2=0%), cardiac death (OR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.52-1.40; P=0.537, I=0%) and all-cause death (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.53-1.15; P=0.205, I=15%) did not differ between BVS and DES. Conversely, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was more frequent in the BVS group (OR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.01-1.73; P=0.039, I=0%), as well as device thrombosis (2.2% 0.6%, OR 2.94, 95% CI: 1.71-5.05, P=0.0001, I=0%) and target-vessel MI (5.4% 3%, OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.25-2.21, P=0.001, I=0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of BVS is associated with an increased risk of device thrombosis, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI. If longer follow-up or different implantation technique may change these findings should be addressed in future trials.

摘要

背景

在过去几年中,生物可吸收血管支架(BVS)已成为介入心脏病学家的一种新的治疗选择,其优点是该支架可能诱导血管壁恢复。然而,多项试验试图证明支架的安全性和有效性,但结果相互矛盾。

方法

进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析。于2017年1月至3月在PubMed、谷歌学术、生物医学中心和考克兰图书馆进行检索。纳入标准:比较Absorb BVS与耐用聚合物钴铬依维莫司洗脱支架的随机临床试验(RCT)。分析的结局包括全因死亡率、心源性死亡、缺血驱动的靶病变血运重建、靶血管心肌梗死(MI)、靶病变失败(TLF)/器械相关复合终点(DOCE)以及器械血栓形成。采用固定效应荟萃分析。数据以比值比(OR)表示。

结果

共纳入5674例患者(药物洗脱支架(DES)组平均年龄62.2±1.31岁,BVS组平均年龄62±1.47岁;P = 0.942)。BVS组和DES组在DOCE(OR 1.16,95%CI:0.90 - 1.48;P = 0.259,I² = 0%)、心源性死亡(OR 0.86,95%CI:0.52 - 1.40;P = 0.537,I² = 0%)和全因死亡(OR 0.78,95%CI:0.53 - 1.15;P = 0.205,I² = 15%)方面无差异。相反,BVS组缺血驱动的靶病变血运重建更为频繁(OR 1.32,95%CI:1.01 - 1.73;P = 0.039,I² = 0%),器械血栓形成(2.2%对0.6%,OR 2.94,95%CI:1.71 - 5.05,P = 0.0001,I² = 0%)以及靶血管MI(5.4%对3%,OR 1.66,95%CI:1.25 - 2.21,P = 0.001,I² = 0%)也是如此。

结论

植入BVS与器械血栓形成、缺血驱动的靶病变血运重建和靶血管MI风险增加相关。更长时间的随访或不同的植入技术是否会改变这些结果,有待未来试验进一步探讨。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

1
Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI.生物可吸收支架与金属支架在常规 PCI 中的应用比较。
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 15;376(24):2319-2328. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1614954. Epub 2017 Mar 29.
4
Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease.用于冠状动脉疾病的生物可吸收支架
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2017 Jan;19(1):5. doi: 10.1007/s11886-017-0812-7.

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