Department of Cardiology, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100037, China.
Chin Med J (Engl). 2018 Jun 20;131(12):1397-1405. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.233959.
It remains undetermined whether second-generation drug-eluting stents (G2-DESs) outperform first-generation DESs (G1-DESs) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of G1-DES and G2-DES in ACS patients in a high-volume cardiovascular center.
In 2013, 10,724 consecutive patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in our institution. We included 4037 patients with ACS who underwent exclusively G1-DES or G2-DES implantation (n = 364 and n = 3673, respectively). We used propensity score matching to minimize the imbalance between the G1-DES and G2-DES groups and followed patients for 2 years. The efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and its components including target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TV-MI), target vessel revascularization/target lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and cardiac death. The safety endpoint was stent thrombosis. Continuous variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U-test, and categorical variables were compared using Pearson's Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to compare the event-free survival rates, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess whether stent type was an independent risk factor for the efficacy and safety endpoints.
At the 2-year follow-up, the results for MACE and it components, as well as stent thrombosis, were similar for G1-DES and G2-DES (MACE, 5.2% vs. 4.3%, χ = 0.514, P = 0.474; TV-MI, 0.8% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.407; TVR, 4.9% vs. 3.7%, χ = 0.939, P = 0.333; TLR, 3.8% vs. 2.5%, χ = 1.610, P = 0.205; cardiac death, 0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.670; and stent thrombosis, 0.5% vs. 0.4%, P > 0.999). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated similar event-free survival rates between G1-DES and G2-DES after propensity score matching (all: log-rank P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that stent type was not an independent risk factor for the efficacy and safety endpoints (MACE, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.805, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.455-1.424, P = 0.456; TV-MI, HR = 0.500, 95% CI: 0.101-2.475, P = 0.395; TVR, HR = 0.732, 95% CI: 0.403-1.330, P = 0.306; TLR, HR = 0.629, 95% CI: 0.313-1.264, P = 0.193; cardiac death, HR = 1.991, 95% CI: 0.223-17.814, P = 0.538; and stent thrombosis, HR = 0.746, 95% CI: 0.125-4.467, P = 0.749).
G1-DES and G2-DES have similar efficacy and safety profiles in ACS patients at the 2-year follow-up.
在急性冠脉综合征(ACS)患者中,第二代药物洗脱支架(G2-DES)是否优于第一代 DES(G1-DES)仍不确定。我们旨在比较在高容量心血管中心 ACS 患者中 G1-DES 和 G2-DES 的疗效和安全性。
2013 年,我们机构连续收治了 10724 例经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者。我们纳入了 4037 例接受单纯 G1-DES 或 G2-DES 植入术的 ACS 患者(分别为 n = 364 和 n = 3673)。我们使用倾向评分匹配来最小化 G1-DES 和 G2-DES 组之间的不平衡,并对患者进行了 2 年的随访。疗效终点为主要不良心脏事件(MACE)及其组成部分,包括靶血管相关心肌梗死(TV-MI)、靶血管血运重建/靶病变血运重建(TVR/TLR)和心脏死亡。安全性终点为支架血栓形成。连续变量采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验进行比较,分类变量采用 Pearson 卡方或 Fisher 确切检验进行比较。Kaplan-Meier 曲线用于比较无事件生存率,多变量 Cox 比例风险回归分析用于评估支架类型是否为疗效和安全性终点的独立危险因素。
在 2 年的随访中,G1-DES 和 G2-DES 的 MACE 和其组成部分以及支架血栓形成的结果相似(MACE:5.2%比 4.3%,χ=0.514,P=0.474;TV-MI:0.8%比 0.4%,P=0.407;TVR:4.9%比 3.7%,χ=0.939,P=0.333;TLR:3.8%比 2.5%,χ=1.610,P=0.205;心脏死亡:0.3%比 0.5%,P=0.670;支架血栓形成:0.5%比 0.4%,P>0.999)。倾向性评分匹配后Kaplan-Meier 分析表明 G1-DES 和 G2-DES 的无事件生存率相似(所有:log-rank P>0.05)。多变量分析表明支架类型不是疗效和安全性终点的独立危险因素(MACE:风险比[HR]=0.805,95%置信区间[CI]:0.455-1.424,P=0.456;TV-MI:HR=0.500,95%CI:0.101-2.475,P=0.395;TVR:HR=0.732,95%CI:0.403-1.330,P=0.306;TLR:HR=0.629,95%CI:0.313-1.264,P=0.193;心脏死亡:HR=1.991,95%CI:0.223-17.814,P=0.538;支架血栓形成:HR=0.746,95%CI:0.125-4.467,P=0.749)。
在 2 年随访中,G1-DES 和 G2-DES 在 ACS 患者中的疗效和安全性相似。