Suppr超能文献

所有行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者中,第一代和第二代药物洗脱支架植入后的 5 年结果。

Five-year outcomes after first- and second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology and Nephrology, Dokkyo Medical University, Mibu, Tochigi, Japan.

Department of Cardiology and Nephrology, Dokkyo Medical University, Mibu, Tochigi, Japan.

出版信息

J Cardiol. 2019 Aug;74(2):169-174. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2019.01.012. Epub 2019 Feb 14.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Use of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) instead of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) out to 3 years. However, it is not known whether the differences in efficacy and safety outcomes remain constant throughout 5 years.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, non-randomized, observational study. We followed 1460 consecutive patients undergoing PCI in our institutions from April 2005 to March 2012. There were 718 cases in patients with SES (SES group) and 742 with EES (EES group). Ten-month angiographic follow-up results and 5-year clinical follow-up outcomes were compared between the EES and SES groups. The primary outcome of this study was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis (ST).

RESULTS

At 5 years, the rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR), TVR, recurrent MI and ST were significantly lower in the EES group compared to the SES group (TLR: 4.6% vs. 8.2%, p<0.05; TVR: 5.0% vs. 9.0%, p<0.05; recurrent MI: 1.5% vs. 4.4%, p<0.05; ST: 1.2% vs. 3.9%, p<0.05). Thus, MACE were significantly lesser in the EES group compared to the SES group (8.8% vs. 12.8%, p=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

EES improved clinical outcomes compared to SES, and specifically, was associated with reductions in TVR, ST, and recurrent MI out to 5 years.

摘要

背景

在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中,与使用西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)相比,使用依维莫司洗脱支架(EES)可改善 3 年内的临床结果。然而,尚不清楚在 5 年内,疗效和安全性结果的差异是否保持不变。

方法

这是一项回顾性、非随机、观察性研究。我们对 2005 年 4 月至 2012 年 3 月期间在我院接受 PCI 的 1460 例连续患者进行了随访。SES 组(SES 组)患者 718 例,EES 组(EES 组)患者 742 例。比较了 EES 组和 SES 组之间 10 个月的血管造影随访结果和 5 年的临床随访结果。本研究的主要终点是主要不良心脏事件(MACE),定义为心脏死亡、再发心肌梗死(MI)、靶血管血运重建(TVR)和支架血栓形成(ST)的复合事件。

结果

5 年时,EES 组的靶病变血运重建(TLR)、TVR、再发 MI 和 ST 的发生率明显低于 SES 组(TLR:4.6%比 8.2%,p<0.05;TVR:5.0%比 9.0%,p<0.05;再发 MI:1.5%比 4.4%,p<0.05;ST:1.2%比 3.9%,p<0.05)。因此,EES 组的 MACE 明显少于 SES 组(8.8%比 12.8%,p=0.006)。

结论

EES 改善了与 SES 相比的临床结果,特别是在 5 年内,TVR、ST 和再发 MI 发生率降低。

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