...
首页> 外文期刊>Vascular Health and Risk Management >Outcomes of patients treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent in a consecutive cohort of patients at a tertiary medical center
【24h】

Outcomes of patients treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent in a consecutive cohort of patients at a tertiary medical center

机译:三级医疗中心连续队列中使用依维莫司洗脱支架与佐他莫司洗脱支架治疗的患者结果

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background: In this study we compared the outcomes of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in patients treated at a tertiary medical center, with up to one year of follow-up. Methods: Unselected consecutive patients were retrospectively recruited following stenting with the ZES (n = 197) or EES (n = 190). The first 100 consecutive patients in each cohort underwent syntax scoring. The primary endpoint of the study was target vessel failure, defined as the combined endpoint of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization, target lesion failure, acute stent thrombosis, total death, cardiac death, and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Results: The two groups were similar, including for Syntax scores (19.6 ± 12.8 versus 20.6 ± 13.6), number of stents per patient (2.9 ± 1.9 versus 2.9 ± 2.1), and cardiovascular risk factors. By one year, the primary outcome occurred in 20.8% EES versus 26.7% ZES ( P = 0.19) patients. The secondary endpoints were as follows: target lesion revascularization (8.9% versus 20.6%, P = 0.003), target vessel revascularization (18.9% versus 25.6%, P = 0.142), definite and probable stent thrombosis (0% versus 2.5%), non-fatal myocardial infarction (2.7% versus 3.6%), and mortality (3.2% versus 5.1%) for the EES versus the ZES, respectively. Conclusion: EES had similar target vessel failure to ZES, but superior target lesion revascularization and target lesion failure at one year of follow-up in an unselected cohort of patients.
机译:背景:在这项研究中,我们比较了三级医疗中心治疗的患者中依维莫司洗脱支架(EES)与佐他莫司洗脱支架(ZES)的结果,随访时间长达一年。方法:选择ZES(n = 197)或EES(n = 190)进行支架置入后的未选择的连续患者。每个队列中的前100名连续患者接受语法评分。研究的主要终点是目标血管衰竭,定义为心源性死亡,非致命性心肌梗塞或目标血管血运重建的总终点。次要终点包括靶病变血运重建,靶病变衰竭,急性支架血栓形成,总死亡,心源性死亡和非致命性心肌梗塞。结果:两组相似,包括语法评分(19.6±12.8 vs 20.6±13.6),每位患者的支架数量(2.9±1.9 vs 2.9±2.1)以及心血管危险因素。到一年时,主要结局发生在20.8%的EES患者中,而26.7%的ZES患者(P = 0.19)。次要终点如下:目标病变血运重建(8.9%vs 20.6%,P = 0.003),目标血管血运重建(18.9%vs 25.6%,P = 0.142),明确的和可能的支架血栓形成(0%vs 2.5%), EES对ZES的非致命性心肌梗塞(2.7%对3.6%)和死亡率(3.2%对5.1%)。结论:EES的靶血管衰竭与ZES相似,但在未选择的一组患者中,随访一年后靶病变血运重建和靶病变衰竭均较高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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