Dipartimento di Medicina Specialistica, Diagnostica e Sperimentale, IRCCS Policlinico di St. Orsola, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Dipartimento di Medicina Specialistica, Diagnostica e Sperimentale, IRCCS Policlinico di St. Orsola, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Dec 28;13(24):2868-2878. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.014.
The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of currently used drug-eluting stents (DES).
Head-to-head comparisons among newer DES have shown conflicting results.
For this network meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials comparing different types of currently used DES were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and proceedings of international meetings. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year and at long-term follow-up.
Seventy-seven trials with 99,039 patients were selected for this network meta-analysis. Among the 10 DES included in the meta-analysis, 4 received the most extensive investigation: Orsiro, XIENCE, Nobori/BioMatrix, and Resolute. At 1 year, the Orsiro stent was associated with lower rates of TLF compared with XIENCE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71 to 0.98; p = 0.03), Resolute (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.95; p = 0.01), and Nobori/BioMatrix (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.98; p = 0.03). Orsiro had the highest probability to be the best (70.8%), with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve value of 95.9%. However, after a median follow-up period of 50 months (range: 24 to 60 months), no significant difference was apparent in the rates of TLF between any DES, although Orsiro still ranked as the best stent (58.6% probability to be the best). In addition, Orsiro had a lower rate of long-term definite stent thrombosis compared with Nobori/BioMatrix (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.98; p = 0.04) and lower rates of definite and probable stent thrombosis compared with Resolute (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.99; p = 0.04). No differences in cardiac mortality between any DES were observed.
Orsiro is associated with a lower 1-year rate of TLF compared with XIENCE, Resolute, and Nobori/BioMatrix but with an attenuation of the efficacy signal at long-term follow-up.
本研究旨在评估目前使用的药物洗脱支架(DES)的疗效和安全性。
新一代 DES 的头对头比较结果存在矛盾。
本网络荟萃分析检索了 PubMed、Scopus 和国际会议论文集,比较了不同类型的当前使用的 DES 的随机对照试验。主要终点为 1 年和长期随访时的靶病变失败(TLF)。
该网络荟萃分析共纳入了 77 项试验,共计 99039 例患者。荟萃分析纳入的 10 种 DES 中,有 4 种支架得到了广泛研究:Orsiro、XIENCE、Nobori/BioMatrix 和 Resolute。在 1 年时,与 XIENCE(比值比 [OR]:0.84;95%置信区间 [CI]:0.71 至 0.98;p=0.03)、Resolute(OR:0.81;95%CI:0.68 至 0.95;p=0.01)和 Nobori/BioMatrix(OR:0.81;95%CI:0.67 至 0.98;p=0.03)相比,Orsiro 支架的 TLF 发生率较低。Orsiro 被认为是最佳支架的概率最高(70.8%),累积排序曲线下面积值为 95.9%。然而,在中位随访 50 个月(范围:24 至 60 个月)后,任何 DES 的 TLF 发生率均无显著差异,尽管 Orsiro 仍被评为最佳支架(最佳支架的概率为 58.6%)。此外,与 Nobori/BioMatrix 相比,Orsiro 发生长期明确支架血栓形成的风险较低(OR:0.60;95%CI:0.36 至 0.98;p=0.04),与 Resolute 相比,发生明确和可能的支架血栓形成的风险也较低(OR:0.66;95%CI:0.45 至 0.99;p=0.04)。任何 DES 之间的心脏死亡率均无差异。
与 XIENCE、Resolute 和 Nobori/BioMatrix 相比,Orsiro 支架在 1 年内发生 TLF 的发生率较低,但在长期随访时疗效信号减弱。