...
首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet >Paclitaxel-eluting balloons, paclitaxel-eluting stents, and balloon angioplasty in patients with restenosis after implantation of a drug-eluting stent (ISAR-DESIRE 3): A randomised, open-label trial
【24h】

Paclitaxel-eluting balloons, paclitaxel-eluting stents, and balloon angioplasty in patients with restenosis after implantation of a drug-eluting stent (ISAR-DESIRE 3): A randomised, open-label trial

机译:紫杉醇洗脱球囊,紫杉醇洗脱支架和在植入药物洗脱支架后再狭窄患者中的球囊血管成形术(ISAR-DESIRE 3):一项随机,开放标签的试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: The best way to manage restenosis in patients who have previously received a drug-eluting stent is unknown. We investigated the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloons (PEB), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and balloon angioplasty in these patients. Methods: In this randomised, open-label trial, we enrolled patients older than 18 years with restenosis of at least 50% after implantation of any limus-eluting stent at three centres in Germany between Aug 3, 2009, and Oct 27, 2011. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1; stratified according to centre) to receive PEB, PES, or balloon angioplasty alone by means of sealed, opaque envelopes containing a computer-generated sequence. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation, but events and angiograms were assessed by individuals who were masked. The primary endpoint was diameter stenosis at follow-up angiography at 6-8 months. Primary analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00987324. Findings: We enrolled 402 patients, of whom 137 (34%) were assigned to PEB, 131 (33%) to PES, and 134 (33%) to balloon angioplasty. Follow-up angiography at 6-8 months was available for 338 (84%) patients. PEB was non-inferior to PES in terms of diameter stenosis (38·0% [SD 21·5] vs 37·4% [21·8]; difference 0·6%, one-sided 95% CI 4·9%; p non-inferiority=0·007; non-inferiority margin of 7%). Findings were consistent in per-protocol analysis (pnon-inferiority= 0·011). PEB and PES were superior to balloon angioplasty alone (54·1% [25·0]; psuperiority0·0001 for both comparisons). Frequency of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis did not differ between groups. Interpretation: By obviating the need for additional stent implantation, PEB could be a useful treatment for patients with restenosis after implantation of a drug-eluting stent. Funding: Deutsches Herzzentrum.
机译:背景:以前曾接受过药物洗脱支架的患者中治疗再狭窄的最佳方法尚不清楚。我们研究了紫杉醇洗脱球囊(PEB),紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES)和球囊血管成形术在这些患者中的疗效。方法:在这项随机开放标签试验中,我们招募了在2009年8月3日至2011年10月27日之间在德国的三个中心植入任何limus洗脱支架后再狭窄至少50%的18岁以上患者。通过包含计算机生成序列的密封,不透明信封将患者随机分配(1:1:1;按中心分层)单独接受PEB,PES或球囊血管成形术。患者和研究者没有被掩盖在治疗分配上,但是事件和血管造影是由被掩盖的个人评估的。主要终点为6-8个月的随访血管造影时的直径狭窄。初步分析是按意向进行的。该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov上注册,编号为NCT00987324。结果:我们招募了402例患者,其中137例(34%)被指定为PEB,131例(33%)被指定为PES,134例(33%)被指定为球囊血管成形术。 338(84%)位患者可在6-8个月进行随访血管造影。就直径狭窄而言,PEB不亚于PES(38·0%[SD 21·5] vs 37·4%[21·8];差异0·6%,单侧95%CI 4·9% ; p非劣效性= 0·007;非劣效性余量为7%)。在按方案分析中,发现是一致的(pnon-inferiority = 0·011)。 PEB和PES优于单独的球囊血管成形术(54·1%[25·0]; psuperiority <0·0001)。两组之间的死亡,心肌梗塞或靶病变血栓形成的频率无差异。解释:通过消除对额外支架植入的需求,PEB可能是药物洗脱支架植入后再狭窄患者的有用治疗方法。资金来源:Deutsches Herzzentrum。

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