...
首页> 外文期刊>Advances in Interventional Cardiology: Postepy w Kardiologii Interwencyjnej >Comparison of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold to the Xience durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in routine clinical practice: a propensity score-matched analysis from a?multicenter registry
【24h】

Comparison of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold to the Xience durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in routine clinical practice: a propensity score-matched analysis from a?multicenter registry

机译:常规临床实践中可吸收生物可吸收血管支架与Xience耐用聚合物依维莫司洗脱金属支架的比较:来自多中心注册表的倾向得分匹配分析

获取原文

摘要

Introduction Most clinical trials related to bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) technology are limited to a?highly selected patient population. Aim To evaluate early and long-term clinical outcomes of the Absorb everolimus-eluting BVS compared to the everolimus-eluting metallic XIENCE V stent in routine clinical practice. Material and methods This is a?multicenter, retrospective propensity score-matched comparative study, comprising 76 patients treated with a?bare metal stents (BMS) and 501 with a?XIENCE stent. Patients included in the study had stable and unstable angina and both types of myocardial infarction (STEMI and NSTEMI) as an indication for intervention and at least one significant de novo lesion in native coronary arteries. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results Median follow-up was 400 days in both groups. After propensity score matching for patient baseline characteristics, only higher rate of predilatation, predominantly treated left anterior descending artery (LAD) and lower number of used stents in the BVS group remained statistically significant. After adjustment there was no difference in type of treated lesions. The MACE rate did not differ between BVS and drug-eluting stents (DES) groups (7.2% vs. 11.15%, respectively; p = 0.17). The TVR was 2.9% in both groups. Except in the periprocedural period, there were no deaths or MI in the BVS group. There was no stent thrombosis in either studied group. Conclusions In routine clinical practice throughout long-term follow-up, clinical outcomes of patients who successfully received the Absorb BVS did not differ from those of patients who received the Xience stent. Longer follow-up data are required to determine whether these findings will persist beyond one year.
机译:简介大多数与生物可吸收血管支架(BVS)技术相关的临床试验仅限于高度选择的患者人群。目的在常规临床实践中评估与依维莫司洗脱金属XIENCE V支架相比,Absorb依维莫司洗脱BVS的早期和长期临床疗效。材料和方法这是一项多中心回顾性倾向评分匹配的比较研究,包括76例使用裸机金属支架(BMS)和501例aXIENCE支架治疗的患者。纳入研究的患者患有稳定型和不稳定型心绞痛,两种类型的心肌梗塞(STEMI和NSTEMI)均可作为干预的指征,并且至少可显着破坏天然冠状动脉的一种新发病变。主要终点为主要不良心血管事件(MACE),定义为死亡,心肌梗死(MI)或目标血管血运重建(TVR)。结果两组的中位随访时间均为400天。在针对患者基线特征进行倾向评分匹配后,BVS组中只有较高的扩张率,主要治疗的左前降支动脉(LAD)和较少使用的支架数量才具有统计学意义。调整后,治疗病变的类型没有差异。 BVS组和药物洗脱支架(DES)组之间的MACE率无差异(分别为7.2%和11.15%; p = 0.17)。两组的TVR均为2.9%。除围手术期外,BVS组无死亡或MI。任一研究组均未发生支架血栓形成。结论在整个长期随访的常规临床实践中,成功接受Absorb BVS的患者的临床结局与接受Xience支架的患者的临床结局没有差异。需要更长的随访数据来确定这些发现是否会持续超过一年。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号