• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

可生物降解聚合物药物洗脱支架与第一代耐用聚合物药物洗脱支架:12项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus first-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Bundhun Pravesh Kumar, Pursun Manish, Huang Feng

机构信息

Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University Guangxi Medical University Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Guangxi Key Laboratory Base of Precision Medicine in Cardio-cerebrovascular Diseases Control and Prevention, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, P. R. China.

出版信息

Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Nov;96(47):e8878. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008878.

DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000008878
PMID:29382011
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5709010/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Even if drug-eluting stents (DES) showed beneficial effects in patients with coronary artery diseases (CADs), limitations have been observed with the first-generation durable polymer DES (DP-DES). Recently, biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) have been approved to be used as an alternative to DP-DES, with potential benefits. We aimed to systematically compare BP-DES with the first-generation DP-DES using a large number of randomized patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-DES with first-generation DP-DES. The main endpoints were the long-term (≥2 years) adverse clinical outcomes that were reported with these 2 types of DES. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the analysis was carried out by RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Twelve trials with a total number of 13,480 patients (7730 and 5750 patients were treated by BP-DES and first-generation DP-DES, respectively) were included. During a long-term follow-up period of ≥2 years, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were not significantly different between these 2 groups with OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.07; P = .16, I = 0%, OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.45-2.27; P = .98, I = 0%, OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.75-1.11; P = .37, I = 0% and OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67; P = .65, I = 0%, respectively. Long-term total stent thrombosis (ST), definite ST, and probable ST were also not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES with OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50-1.18; P = .22, I = 0%, OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.43-1.18; P = .19, I = 0% and OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.08; P = .53, I = 6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Long-term mortality, MI, TLR, MACEs, and ST were not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES. However, the follow-up period was restricted to only 3 years in this analysis.

摘要

背景

尽管药物洗脱支架(DES)在冠状动脉疾病(CAD)患者中显示出有益效果,但第一代耐用聚合物DES(DP-DES)存在局限性。最近,可生物降解聚合物DES(BP-DES)已被批准用作DP-DES的替代品,并具有潜在益处。我们旨在使用大量随机患者系统地比较BP-DES与第一代DP-DES。

方法

检索电子数据库以查找比较BP-DES与第一代DP-DES的随机对照试验(RCT)。主要终点是这两种类型DES报告的长期(≥2年)不良临床结局。我们计算了比值比(OR)及其95%置信区间(CI),并使用RevMan 5.3软件进行分析。

结果

纳入了12项试验,共有13480名患者(分别有7730名和5750名患者接受了BP-DES和第一代DP-DES治疗)。在≥2年的长期随访期内,两组之间的死亡率、心肌梗死(MI)、靶病变血运重建(TLR)和主要不良心脏事件(MACE)无显著差异,OR分别为:0.84,95%CI:0.66 - 1.07;P = 0.16,I = 0%;OR:1.01,95%CI:0.45 - 2.27;P = 0.98,I = 0%;OR:0.91,95%CI:0.75 - 1.11;P = 0.37,I = 0%;OR:0.86,95%CI:0.44 - 1.67;P = 0.65,I = 0%。BP-DES与第一代DP-DES之间的长期总支架血栓形成(ST)、确定性ST和可能ST也无显著差异,OR分别为:0.77,95%CI:0.50 - 1.18;P = 0.22,I = 0%;OR:0.71,95%CI:0.43 - 1.18;P = 0.19,I = 0%;OR:1.31,95%CI:0.56 - 3.08;P = 0.53,I = 6%。

结论

BP-DES与第一代DP-DES之间的长期死亡率、MI、TLR、MACE和ST无显著差异。然而,本分析中的随访期仅限制在3年。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/61adbacdac00/medi-96-e8878-g019.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/8b3a34803986/medi-96-e8878-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/e4391693fc84/medi-96-e8878-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/8f9f68fcdcf3/medi-96-e8878-g008.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/697776899086/medi-96-e8878-g009.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/a4f6f5152395/medi-96-e8878-g010.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/09923c98476c/medi-96-e8878-g011.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/25401b505bdf/medi-96-e8878-g013.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/57f9b3cede26/medi-96-e8878-g015.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/121407b7272a/medi-96-e8878-g016.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/ce4ae4b14c4d/medi-96-e8878-g017.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/27fd46a5246c/medi-96-e8878-g018.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/61adbacdac00/medi-96-e8878-g019.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/8b3a34803986/medi-96-e8878-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/e4391693fc84/medi-96-e8878-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/8f9f68fcdcf3/medi-96-e8878-g008.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/697776899086/medi-96-e8878-g009.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/a4f6f5152395/medi-96-e8878-g010.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/09923c98476c/medi-96-e8878-g011.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/25401b505bdf/medi-96-e8878-g013.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/57f9b3cede26/medi-96-e8878-g015.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/121407b7272a/medi-96-e8878-g016.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/ce4ae4b14c4d/medi-96-e8878-g017.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/27fd46a5246c/medi-96-e8878-g018.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ed6d/5709010/61adbacdac00/medi-96-e8878-g019.jpg

相似文献

1
Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus first-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials.可生物降解聚合物药物洗脱支架与第一代耐用聚合物药物洗脱支架:12项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Nov;96(47):e8878. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008878.
2
Adverse cardiovascular events associated with biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials.与生物可降解聚合物药物洗脱支架和耐用聚合物依维莫司洗脱支架相关的不良心血管事件:对10项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jul;96(28):e7510. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007510.
3
Comparing Stent Thrombosis associated with Zotarolimus Eluting Stents versus Everolimus Eluting Stents at 1 year follow up: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials.1年随访期内佐他莫司洗脱支架与依维莫司洗脱支架相关的支架内血栓形成比较:6项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017 Mar 16;17(1):84. doi: 10.1186/s12872-017-0515-4.
4
Stent Thrombosis With Drug-Eluting Stents and Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Evidence From a Network Meta-Analysis of 147 Trials.药物洗脱支架和生物可吸收支架的支架内血栓形成:来自 147 项试验的网络荟萃分析证据。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Jun 27;9(12):1203-1212. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.03.038. Epub 2016 Jun 1.
5
Drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and economic evaluation.药物洗脱支架:系统评价与经济学评估
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Nov;11(46):iii, xi-221. doi: 10.3310/hta11460.
6
Drug-eluting balloon versus bare-mental stent and drug-eluting stent for de novo coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials.药物洗脱球囊与裸金属支架及药物洗脱支架治疗初发冠状动脉疾病的比较:14项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 26;12(4):e0176365. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176365. eCollection 2017.
7
Safety and efficacy of second-generation drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents: An updated meta-analysis and regression of 9 randomized clinical trials.第二代药物洗脱支架与裸金属支架相比的安全性和有效性:9项随机临床试验的更新荟萃分析与回归分析
Clin Cardiol. 2018 Jan;41(1):151-158. doi: 10.1002/clc.22855. Epub 2018 Jan 25.
8
Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome.药物洗脱支架与裸金属支架治疗急性冠状动脉综合征的比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 23;8(8):CD012481. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012481.pub2.
9
Very late stent thrombosis with second generation drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents: Network meta-analysis of randomized primary percutaneous coronary intervention trials.与裸金属支架相比,第二代药物洗脱支架的极晚期支架内血栓形成:随机原发性经皮冠状动脉介入试验的网状荟萃分析
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Jul;88(1):38-48. doi: 10.1002/ccd.26458. Epub 2016 Feb 24.
10
Dual antiplatelet therapy duration and stent type in patients with high bleeding risk: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.高出血风险患者的双联抗血小板治疗持续时间和支架类型:一项系统评价和网状荟萃分析。
Am Heart J. 2025 Jan;279:9-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2024.10.004. Epub 2024 Oct 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Drug-Eluting Stents and Balloons-Materials, Structure Designs, and Coating Techniques: A Review.药物洗脱支架和球囊-材料、结构设计和涂层技术:综述。
Molecules. 2020 Oct 11;25(20):4624. doi: 10.3390/molecules25204624.
2
Biodegradable polymer versus second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.可生物降解聚合物与第二代耐用聚合物药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉疾病患者的Meta分析。
Health Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 5;1(11):e93. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.93. eCollection 2018 Nov.

本文引用的文献

1
Adverse clinical outcomes associated with a low dose and a high dose of aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后低剂量和高剂量阿司匹林相关的不良临床结局:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016 Sep 2;16(1):169. doi: 10.1186/s12872-016-0347-7.
2
Should a prolonged duration of dual anti-platelet therapy be recommended to patients with diabetes mellitus following percutaneous coronary intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后,糖尿病患者是否应推荐延长双联抗血小板治疗时间?对15项研究的系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016 Aug 30;16(1):161. doi: 10.1186/s12872-016-0343-y.
3
Impact of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention on mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease and on dialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
冠状动脉搭桥手术和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗对慢性肾病及透析患者死亡率的影响:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jul;95(27):e4129. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004129.
4
Meta-Analysis of the Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Treated With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents.第二代药物洗脱支架治疗患者双联抗血小板治疗持续时间的Meta分析
Am J Cardiol. 2016 Jun 1;117(11):1714-23. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.03.005. Epub 2016 Mar 19.
5
Impact of Antiphospholipid Syndrome and/or Systemic Lupus Erythematosus on the Long-term Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.抗磷脂综合征和/或系统性红斑狼疮对经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者长期不良心血管结局的影响:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Mar;95(12):e3200. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003200.
6
Impact of Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors on Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 100 Studies.可改变的心血管危险因素对经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后死亡率的影响:100项研究的系统评价和荟萃分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Dec;94(50):e2313. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002313.
7
Does an Obesity Paradox Really Exist After Cardiovascular Intervention?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies.心血管介入治疗后肥胖悖论真的存在吗?:一项对随机对照试验和观察性研究的系统评价与荟萃分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Nov;94(44):e1910. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001910.
8
Adverse cardiovascular outcomes between insulin-treated and non-insulin treated diabetic patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后胰岛素治疗与非胰岛素治疗糖尿病患者的不良心血管结局:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2015 Oct 7;14:135. doi: 10.1186/s12933-015-0300-6.
9
Safety of an abbreviated duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (≤6 months) following second-generation drug-eluting stents for coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.第二代药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉疾病后短期双联抗血小板治疗(≤6个月)的安全性:一项随机试验的系统评价和荟萃分析
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Mar;87(4):722-732. doi: 10.1002/ccd.26110. Epub 2015 Aug 26.
10
Comparison of the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis.可生物降解聚合物药物洗脱支架与耐用聚合物药物洗脱支架的安全性和有效性比较:一项荟萃分析。
Eur J Med Res. 2015 Mar 5;20(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s40001-015-0110-z.