...
首页> 外文期刊>Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions. >Comparison of Ultrathin, Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents and Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Calcified or Small Vessel Lesions
【24h】

Comparison of Ultrathin, Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents and Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Calcified or Small Vessel Lesions

机译:比较的超薄,Bioresorbable-Polymer析支架和薄,Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting支架在钙化或小血管病变

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND: The ultrathin-strut bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) demonstrated comparable performance to durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in randomized controlled trials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a BP-SES compared with a DP-EES in calcified or small vessel lesions, which represent higher risk of restenosis. METHODS: From the pooled BIOFLOW (BIOFLOW-II, IV, and V; BIOTRONIK - A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions ) randomized controlled trials, a total of 1553 BP-SES and 784 DP-EES patients with valid 1-year follow-up data were available. Coronary lesions were assessed for the presence of moderate-to-severe calcification or small vessels (reference vessel diameter, < =2.75 mm) by core laboratory analysis. One-year clinical outcomes were assessed with or without the lesion subsets between BP-SES and DP-EES. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Among patients with small vessel disease, target lesion failure (8.0% versus 12.4%; P<0.01) and target vessel myocardial infarction (4.2% versus 7.6%; P<0.01) were significantly lower in BP-SES than in DP-EES. No difference in the outcome between the stents was shown in patients with non-small vessel lesions. In patients with calcified lesions, target lesion failure (12.2% versus 6.9%; P=0.056), and cardiac death (1.9% versus 0.3%; P=0.081) were numerically higher in DP-EES than in BP-SES. In the noncalcified lesion analysis, target vessel myocardial infarction in DP-EES was significantly higher than in BP-SES. Stent thrombosis was similar between the stents in both lesion groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with more complex disease representing a higher risk of target lesion failure, the effectiveness of an ultrathin-strut BP-SES compared with a thin-strut DP-EES was maintained through 1 year. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01356888, NCT01 939249, NCT02389946. GRAPHIC ABSTRACT: A graphic abstract is available for this article.
机译:背景:ultrathin-strutbioresorbable-polymer析支架(BP-SES)展示了类似的性能durable-polymer everolimus-eluting支架(DP-EES)在随机对照试验。本研究旨在评估的性能BP-SES DP-EES钙化或小血管病变,这代表更高的风险再狭窄。(BIOFLOW-II、IV和V;随机多中心研究来评估安全Orsiro西罗莫司洗脱和有效性冠状动脉支架系统的治疗科目三新创或Restenotic冠状动脉病变)随机对照试验中,总共有1553 BP-SES和784 DP-EES有效的患者1年随访数据可用。存在严重钙化或小型船舶(参考血管直径,< = 2.75毫米)的核心实验室分析。临床结果评估有或没有病变子集BP-SES和DP-EES之间。结果:基线特征是相似的两组之间。血管疾病、靶病变(8.0%失败和12.4%;心肌梗死(分别为4.2%和7.6%;显著降低BP-SES比DP-EES。支架是患者所示非小血管病变。病变,靶病变失败(12.2% vs6.9%;0.3%;BP-SES。分析、目标船心肌梗塞DP-EES显著高于BP-SES。支架血栓形成支架之间的相似在这两种病变组。患者代表一个更复杂的疾病靶病变失败的风险更高,有效性的ultrathin-strut BP-SES而thin-strut DP-EES维护通过1年。https://www.clinicaltrials.gov。identifiers: NCT01356888, NCT01 939249,NCT02389946。本文可供。

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