Suppr超能文献

药物洗脱支架与裸金属支架用于隐静脉桥病变经皮冠状动脉介入治疗:随机对照试验的最新荟萃分析

Drug eluting versus bare metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Ha Francis J, Nogic Jason, Montone Rocco A, Cameron James D, Nerlekar Nitesh, Brown Adam J

机构信息

Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University and MonashHeart, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.

Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy; Interventional Cardiology, ASL Viterbo, Belcolle Hospital, Viterbo, Italy.

出版信息

Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 Oct-Nov;19(7 Pt B):837-844. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.03.025. Epub 2018 Apr 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred strategy for treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease. However, there remains ongoing debate on whether drug-eluting stents (DES) or bare-metal stents (BMS) should be used during SVG-PCI.

METHODS/MATERIALS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DES and BMS for SVG-PCI. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) or repeat revascularization. Secondary end points included individual MACE components, cardiac death and stent thrombosis (ST).

RESULTS

Six RCTs including 1582 patients (50% receiving DES) met inclusion criteria. MACE occurred in 31% (244/797) patients receiving DES and 36% (281/785) patients receiving BMS (median follow-up, 12-35 months). There was no significant difference in MACE between DES and BMS (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.62, 95%CI 0.36-1.09, p = 0.10, I = 77%). However, for individual components of MACE, DES was associated with a significant reduction in repeat revascularization (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.29-0.97, p = 0.04, I = 73%). There was no difference in all-cause death (OR 1.30, 95%CI 0.77-2.20, p = 0.33, I = 40%), MI (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.38-1.25, p = 0.22, I = 56%), cardiac death (OR 1.08, 95%CI 0.45-2.64, p = 0.86, I = 42%) or ST (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.37-2.17, p = 0.80, I = 35%) between stents.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no significant difference in MACE, DES is associated with a reduction in repeat revascularization compared with BMS in pooled randomized trials for SVG-PCI. The high occurrence of MACE in both stent platforms highlights the need for novel therapeutic approaches to improve clinical outcomes following SVG intervention.

SUMMARY

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing DES and BMS for SVG-PCI. There was no significant difference in MACE between DES and BMS. However, for individual components of MACE, DES was associated with a significant reduction in repeat revascularization. The high occurrence of MACE in both stent platforms highlights the need for novel therapeutic approaches to improve clinical outcomes following SVG intervention.

摘要

背景/目的:经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)是治疗大隐静脉桥血管(SVG)病变的首选策略。然而,对于在SVG-PCI过程中应使用药物洗脱支架(DES)还是裸金属支架(BMS),仍存在争议。

方法/材料:我们对比较DES和BMS用于SVG-PCI的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了荟萃分析。主要终点是主要不良心脏事件(MACE),定义为全因死亡、心肌梗死(MI)或再次血运重建的综合结果。次要终点包括MACE的各个组成部分、心源性死亡和支架血栓形成(ST)。

结果

六项RCT(共1582例患者,50%接受DES)符合纳入标准。接受DES的患者中有31%(244/797)发生MACE,接受BMS的患者中有36%(281/785)发生MACE(中位随访时间为12 - 35个月)。DES和BMS之间的MACE无显著差异(优势比(OR)0.62,95%置信区间0.36 - 1.09,p = 0.10,I = 77%)。然而,对于MACE的各个组成部分,DES与再次血运重建的显著减少相关(OR 0.53,95%置信区间0.29 - 0.97,p = 0.04,I = 73%)。在全因死亡(OR 1.30,95%置信区间0.77 - 2.20,p = 0.33,I = 40%)、MI(OR 0.68,95%置信区间0.38 - 1.25,p = 0.22,I = 56%)、心源性死亡(OR 1.08,95%置信区间0.45 - 2.64,p = 0.86,I = 42%)或ST(OR 0.89,95%置信区间0.37 - 2.17,p = 0.80,I = 35%)方面,两种支架之间无差异。

结论

尽管在MACE方面无显著差异,但在汇总的SVG-PCI随机试验中,与BMS相比,DES与再次血运重建的减少相关。两种支架平台中MACE的高发生率凸显了需要新的治疗方法来改善SVG介入后的临床结局。

总结

我们对比较DES和BMS用于SVG-PCI的随机对照试验进行了荟萃分析。DES和BMS之间的MACE无显著差异。然而,对于MACE的各个组成部分,DES与再次血运重建的显著减少相关。两种支架平台中MACE的高发生率凸显了需要新的治疗方法来改善SVG介入后的临床结局。

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