CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

Acute Coronary Syndrom

科研文章

荐读文献

Imaging Coronary Anatomy and Reducing Myocardial Infarction Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome Clinical and Angiographic Features of Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Acute Myocardial Infarction An EAPCI Expert Consensus Document on Ischaemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in Collaboration with European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology & Microcirculation Endorsed by Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group Culprit lesion location and outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial Association Between Collateral Circulation and Myocardial Viability Evaluated by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion Heart Regeneration by Endogenous Stem Cells and Cardiomyocyte Proliferation: Controversy, Fallacy, and Progress Early Versus Standard Care Invasive Examination and Treatment of Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: The VERDICT (Very EaRly vs Deferred Invasive evaluation using Computerized Tomography) - Randomized Controlled Trial Optimum Blood Pressure in Patients With Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Arrest The Wait for High-Sensitivity Troponin Is Over—Proceed Cautiously

Review ArticleVolume 74, Issue 21, November 2019

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Efficacy and Safety of Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

P Chichareon, R Modolo, PW Serruys et al. Keywords: bare-metal stents; drug-eluting stents; efficacy; individual patient data; network meta-analysis; safety; STEMI

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - To date, no specific drug-eluting stent (DES) has fully proven its superiority over others in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

 

OBJECTIVES - The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery stents in STEMI patients in a patient-level network meta-analysis.

 

METHODS - Eligible studies were dedicated randomized controlled trials comparing different stents in STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with at least 12 months of clinical follow-up. Of 19 studies identified from the published data, individual patient data were collected in 15 studies with 10,979 patients representing 87.7% of patients in the overall network of evidence. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or target lesion revascularization.

 

RESULTS - Overall, 8,487 (77.3%) of 10,979 STEMI patients were male and the mean age was 60.7 years. At a median follow-up of 3 years, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), patients treated with paclitaxel-, sirolimus-, everolimus-, or biolimus-eluting stents had a significantly lower risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs]: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63 to 0.88], 0.65 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.85], 0.70 [95% CI: 0.53 to 0.91], and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.88], respectively). The risk of primary endpoint was not different between patients treated with BMS and zotarolimus-eluting stents (adjusted HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.51 to 1.38]). Among patients treated with DES, no significant difference in the risk of the primary outcome was demonstrated. Treatment with second-generation DES was associated with significantly lower risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis compared with BMS (adjusted HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.42 to 0.89]) and first-generation DES (adjusted HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.36 to 0.88]).

 

CONCLUSIONS - In STEMI patients, DES were superior to BMS with respect to long-term efficacy. No difference in long-term efficacy and safety was observed among specific DES. Second-generation were superior to first-generation DES in reducing stent thrombosis. (Clinical Outcomes After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Using Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stent [DES]: Evidence From the Individual Patient Data Network Meta-Analysis; CRD42018104053)