Heart Center Bad Segeberg Segeberger Kliniken GmbH Bad Segeberg Germany.
Cardiology Department Al-Azhar University Cairo Egypt.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Jun 15;10(12):e019815. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.019815. Epub 2021 May 29.
Background Percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions was associated with worse outcomes in the era of bare-metal and first-generation drug-eluting stents. Data on percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions with newer-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. Therefore, we investigated the impact of lesion calcification on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Methods and Results Patients (n=2361) from BIOFLOW II, IV, and V trials were categorized into moderate/severe versus none/mild lesion calcification by a core laboratory. End points were target-lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization) and probable/definite stent thrombosis at 2 years. The agreement in calcification assessment between the operator and the core laboratory was weak (weighted κ, 0.23). Patients with moderate/severe calcification (n=303; 16%) had higher TLF (13.5% versus 8.4%; =0.003) and stent thrombosis rates (2.1% versus 0.2%; <0.0001), whereas target-lesion revascularization was not different between the groups (5.0% versus 3.9%; =0.302). After adjustment, calcification did not emerge as an independent predictor of TLF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.37; 95% CI, 0.89-2.08; =0.148) but did for target-vessel myocardial infarction (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.68; =0.037). TLF rates were similar between bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (12.6% versus 15.4%, =0.482) in moderate/severe calcification. In none/mild calcification, the bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed lower TLF (7.5% versus 10.3%, =0.045). Conclusions With newer-generation drug-eluting stents, moderate/severe lesion calcification was not associated with more TLF after adjustment for the higher risk of patients with coronary calcification, whereas the rate of target-vessel myocardial infarction was higher. The bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent were equally effective and safe in calcified lesions. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946.
在裸金属支架和第一代药物洗脱支架时代,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗钙化病变与预后较差相关。关于使用新一代药物洗脱支架治疗钙化病变的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的数据很少。因此,我们研究了在使用生物可吸收聚合物西罗莫司洗脱支架或耐用聚合物依维莫司洗脱支架行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者中,病变钙化对临床结局的影响。
BIOFLOW II、IV 和 V 试验的患者(n=2361)由核心实验室按照中度/重度与无/轻度病变钙化进行分类。终点事件为靶病变失败(TLF)(心源性死亡、靶血管心肌梗死或靶病变血运重建)和 2 年时可能/确定的支架血栓形成。操作者和核心实验室之间的钙化评估一致性较弱(加权 κ,0.23)。中度/重度钙化患者(n=303;16%)的 TLF 发生率(13.5% vs. 8.4%;=0.003)和支架血栓形成率(2.1% vs. 0.2%;<0.0001)更高,而两组间的靶病变血运重建无差异(5.0% vs. 3.9%;=0.302)。校正后,钙化并未成为 TLF 的独立预测因素(校正后 hazard ratio [aHR],1.37;95%CI,0.89-2.08;=0.148),但与靶血管心肌梗死相关(aHR,1.66;95%CI,1.03-2.68;=0.037)。在中度/重度钙化患者中,生物可吸收聚合物西罗莫司洗脱支架与耐用聚合物依维莫司洗脱支架的 TLF 发生率相似(12.6% vs. 15.4%;=0.482)。在无/轻度钙化患者中,生物可吸收聚合物西罗莫司洗脱支架的 TLF 发生率更低(7.5% vs. 10.3%;=0.045)。
在使用新一代药物洗脱支架时,校正冠状动脉钙化患者的更高风险后,中度/重度病变钙化与 TLF 发生率增加无关,而靶血管心肌梗死发生率更高。生物可吸收聚合物西罗莫司洗脱支架和耐用聚合物依维莫司洗脱支架在钙化病变中的疗效和安全性相当。
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov;唯一标识符:NCT01356888、NCT01939249、NCT02389946。