Einzeltreffer — DigiBib

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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 2 = 0.514, P = 0.474; TV-MI, 0.8% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.407; TVR, 4.9% vs. 3.7%, χ 2 = 0.939, P = 0.333; TLR, 3.8% vs. 2.5%, χ 2 = 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).

Conclusion: G1-DES and G2-DES have similar efficacy and safety profiles in ACS patients at the 2-year follow-up.

Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest

Titel:	Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Autor/in / Beteiligte Person:	Ma, YL ; Tang, XF ; Yao, Y ; Xu, N ; Song, Y ; Jiang, P ; Xu, JJ ; Wang, HH ; Jiang, L ; Liu, R ; Zhao, XY ; Chen, J ; Gao, Z ; Qiao, SB ; Yang, YJ ; Gao, RL ; Xu, B ; Yuan, JQ
Link:	Full Text Finder (Volltext)
Zeitschrift:	Chinese medical journal, Jg. 131 (2018-06-20), Heft 12, S. 1397-1405
Veröffentlichung:	<2015- > : Beijing : Chinese Medical Association ; produced by Wolters Kluwer ; <i>Original Publication</i>: Peking, Chinese Medical Assn., 2018
Medientyp:	academicJournal
ISSN:	2542-5641 (electronic)
DOI:	10.4103/0366-6999.233959
Schlagwort:	Aged Coronary Thrombosis surgery Female Humans Kaplan-Meier Estimate Male Middle Aged Myocardial Infarction surgery Prospective Studies Acute Coronary Syndrome surgery Drug-Eluting Stents Percutaneous Coronary Intervention methods
Sonstiges:	Nachgewiesen in: MEDLINE Sprachen: English Publication Type: Journal Article Language: English [Chin Med J (Engl)] 2018 Jun 20; Vol. 131 (12), pp. 1397-1405. MeSH Terms: Drug-Eluting Stents* ; Acute Coronary Syndrome / surgery ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention / methods ; Aged ; Coronary Thrombosis / surgery ; Female ; Humans ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Myocardial Infarction / surgery ; Prospective Studies References: EuroIntervention. 2014 Dec;10(8):942-52. (PMID: 23771557) ; Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013 May;10(5):248-60. (PMID: 23419901) ; JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Dec;6(12):1267-74. (PMID: 24355117) ; Chin Med J (Engl). 2017 Jul 20;130(14):1654-1661. (PMID: 28685714) ; J Invasive Cardiol. 2014 Sep;26(9):413-6. (PMID: 25198482) ; Int J Cardiol. 2014 Dec 20;177(3):1056-8. (PMID: 25465837) ; JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Aug;7(8):840-8. (PMID: 25086842) ; JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jan;7(1):20-8. (PMID: 24332420) ; Lancet. 2007 Sep 15;370(9591):937-48. (PMID: 17869634) ; Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 14;37(3):267-315. (PMID: 26320110) ; JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Oct;4(10):1104-15. (PMID: 22017936) ; Am J Cardiol. 2016 Feb 1;117(3):369-75. (PMID: 26705880) ; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jun 16;65(23):2496-507. (PMID: 26065988) ; Circulation. 2014 Jan 14;129(2):211-23. (PMID: 24163064) ; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jun 17;63(23):2510-2520. (PMID: 24768883) ; Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):667-78. (PMID: 17321312) ; Chin Med J (Engl). 2017 Apr 20;130(8):929-935. (PMID: 28397722) ; Circulation. 2007 May 1;115(17):2344-51. (PMID: 17470709) ; Eur J Clin Invest. 2012 Oct;42(10):1047-54. (PMID: 22624990) ; Chin Med J (Engl). 2008 Nov 5;121(21):2144-7. (PMID: 19080174) ; EuroIntervention. 2014 Jun;10(2):212-23. (PMID: 23838425) Contributed Indexing: Keywords: Acute Coronary Syndrome; First-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent; Stent Thrombosis ; Local Abstract: [Publisher, Chinese] 第一代药物洗脱支架与第二代药物洗脱支架在急性冠脉综合征中的有效性与安全性比较研究摘要背景：在急性冠脉综合征（ACS）患者中，第一代药物洗脱支架（G1-DES）与第二代药物洗脱支架（G2-DES）的优劣比较尚无统一结论。本研究拟在ACS患者中比较G1-DES和G2-DES的有效性与安全性。方法：在2013年，共有10,724名连续患者于阜外医院接受了冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）。本研究纳入了4,037名置入G1-DES（ n = 364）或G2-DES（ n = 3,673）的ACS患者。采用倾向性评分匹配法（PSM）平衡两组间的基线差异。随访时间为2年。有效性终点为主要不良心脏事件（MACE）及其组成事件，包括靶血管相关心肌梗死（TV-MI）、靶血管/靶病变血运重建（TVR/TLR）、以及心脏性死亡。安全性终点为支架血栓。采用Mann-Whitney U 检验法比较连续变量，采用χ 2 检验或Fisher确切概率法比较分类变量。通过Kaplan-Meier曲线比较两组间无事件生存率，并应用多因素Cox比例风险回归分析评估支架类型是否为终点事件的独立危险因素。结果：经过2年随访发现，G1-DES组与G2-DES组之间MACE及其组成事件、以及支架血栓发生率无显著性差异（MACE，5.2% vs. 4.3%，χ 2 = 0.514, P = 0.474；TV-MI，0.8% vs. 0.4%，Fisher确切概率 P = 0.407；TVR，4.9% vs. 3.7%， χ 2 = 0.939， P = 0.333；TLR，3.8% vs. 2.5%，χ 2 = 1.610， P = 0.205；心脏性死亡，0.3% vs. 0.5%，Fisher确切概率 P = 0.670；支架血栓，0.5% vs. 0.4%，Fisher确切概率 P > 0.999）。与此相似，G1-DES组与G2-DES组之间上述事件的生存曲线无显著性差异（所有log-rank P 值> 0.05）。多因素分析表明支架类型不是上述研究终点的危险因素（MACE，危险比 [ HR ] = 0.805，95%可信区间 [ 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；心脏性死亡， HR = 1.991，95% CI 0.223-17.814， P = 0.538；支架血栓， HR = 0.746，95% CI 0.125-4.467， P = 0.749）。结论：经过2年随访研究发现，在ACS患者中G1-DES与G2-DES具有相似的有效性及安全性。. Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20180613 Date Completed: 20181009 Latest Revision: 20220317 Update Code: 20240513 PubMed Central ID: PMC6006822

Klicken Sie ein Format an und speichern Sie dann die Daten oder geben Sie eine Empfänger-Adresse ein und lassen Sie sich per Email zusenden.

BibTeX Citavi, JabRef, u.a.
(Literaturverwaltung)

PDF kein Volltext!
(Merkzettel, Notizen)

RIS Endnote, Citavi u.a.
(Literaturverwaltung)

MODS
(XML zur Weiterverarbeitung)

oder

Wählen Sie das für Sie passende Zitationsformat und kopieren Sie es dann in die Zwischenablage, lassen es sich per Mail zusenden oder speichern es als PDF-Datei.

Gewünschter Zitations-Stil:

oder

Bitte prüfen Sie, ob die Zitation formal korrekt ist, bevor Sie sie in einer Arbeit verwenden. Benutzen Sie gegebenenfalls den "Exportieren"-Dialog, wenn Sie ein Literaturverwaltungsprogramm verwenden und die Zitat-Angaben selbst formatieren wollen.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.