...
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Cardiology >Long-term outcome of the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents compared to sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients: The Bern-Rotterdam diabetes cohort study
【24h】

Long-term outcome of the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents compared to sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients: The Bern-Rotterdam diabetes cohort study

机译:与西罗莫司洗脱支架和紫杉醇洗脱支架相比,无限制使用依维莫司洗脱支架的长期结果在糖尿病患者中进行:Bern-Rotterdam糖尿病队列研究

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 Newer generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) improve clinical outcome compared to early generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). We investigated whether the advantage in safety and efficacy also holds among the high-risk population of diabetic patients during long-term follow-up. Methods Between 2002 and 2009, a total of 1963 consecutive diabetic patients treated with the unrestricted use of EES (n = 804), SES (n = 612) and PES (n = 547) were followed throughout three years for the occurrence of cardiac events at two academic institutions. The primary end point was the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis. Results The primary outcome occurred in 1.0% of EES, 3.7% of SES and 3.8% of PES treated patients ([EES vs. SES] adjusted HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.88; [EES vs. PES] adjusted HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.67). Similarly, patients treated with EES had a lower risk of target-lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to patients treated with SES and PES ([EES vs. SES], 5.6% vs. 11.5%, adjusted HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.83; [EES vs. PES], 5.6% vs. 11.3%, adjusted HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77). There were no differences in other safety end points, such as all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE. Conclusion In diabetic patients, the unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved outcomes, specifically a significant decrease in the need for TLR and ST compared to early generation SES and PES throughout 3-year follow-up.
机译:背景技术与早期的西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)和紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES)相比,新一代依维莫司洗脱支架(EES)改善了临床疗效。我们调查了在长期随访期间高危人群中糖尿病患者是否仍具有安全性和疗效优势。方法在2002年至2009年之间,连续3年随访了1963例连续接受无限制使用EES(n = 804),SES(n = 612)和PES(n = 547)治疗的糖尿病患者的心脏事件在两个学术机构。主要终点是明确的支架血栓形成。结果治疗的主要结果发生在EES的1.0%,SES的3.7%和PES的3.8%([EES vs. SES]校正后的HR = 0.58,95%CI 0.39-0.88; [EES vs. PES]校正后的HR = 0.29,95%CI 0.13-0.67)。同样,接受EES治疗的患者与接受SES和PES治疗的患者相比,发生靶病变血运重建(TLR)的风险更低([EES vs. SES],分别为5.6%和11.5%,校正后的HR = 0.68,95%CI: 0.55-0.83; [EES对PES],5.6%对11.3%,调整后的HR = 0.51,95%CI:0.33-0.77)。其他安全终点没有任何差异,例如全因死亡率,心脏死亡率,心肌梗塞(MI)和MACE。结论在糖尿病患者中,与早期SES和PES相比,在3年的随访中,无限制地使用EES似乎与改善结局有关,特别是与早期SES和PES相比,TLR和ST的需求显着减少。

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