CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Guiding Principles for Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Post-Stroke Cardiovascular Complications and Neurogenic Cardiac Injury: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Thin Composite-Wire-Strut Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Ultrathin-Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in BIONYX at 2 Years Large-Bore Radial Access for Complex PCI: A Flash of COLOR With Some Shades of Grey Best Practices for the Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Diagnostic Angiography and Intervention An International Consensus Paper Impact of Optimal Medical Therapy on 10-Year Mortality After Coronary Revascularization Routinely reported ejection fraction and mortality in clinical practice: where does the nadir of risk lie?

Original ResearchVolume 13, Issue 1, January 2020

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Long-Term Outcomes of Biodegradable Versus Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Implantations for Myocardial Infarction

JC Choe, KS Cha, Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health Investigators et al. Keywords: acute myocardial infarction; biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent; clinical outcome; second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stent

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES - This study sought to compare outcomes between biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent (BP-DES) and second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES) implantations for acute myocardial infarction (MI) using a nationwide dataset.

 

BACKGROUND - Data regarding outcomes of BP-DES versus second-generation DP-DES are inconclusive.

 

METHODS - Among 13,104 patients with acute MI in a nationwide registry who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (November 2011 to December 2015), BP-DES and second-generation DP-DES were implanted in 2,261 (21.7%) and 8,182 patients (78.3%), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (all-cause death, recurrent MI, or any revascularization) were compared in multivariable Cox regression, propensity score (PS) matched, and underwent PS-adjusted analyses.

 

RESULTS - MACE occurred in 1,492 (14.3%) patients during a median 723-day follow-up. MACE were less frequent with BP-DES implantation than with second-generation DP-DES implantation (entire cohort hazard ratio [HR]: 0.845; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.740 to 0.965; PS-matched HR: 0.669; 95% CI: 0.550 to 0.814). Risk of all-cause death (entire cohort HR: 0.831; 95% CI: 0.692 to 0.997; PS-matched HR: 0.752; 95% CI: 0.495 to 0.931), cardiac death (entire cohort HR: 0.685; 95% CI: 0.542 to 0.865; PS-matched HR: 0.613; 95% CI: 0.463 to 0.872), recurrent MI (entire cohort HR: 0.662; 95% CI: 0.466 to 0.941; PS-matched HR: 0.611; 95% CI: 0.427 to 0.898), and heart failure readmission (entire cohort HR: 0.625; 95% CI: 0.447 to 0.875; PS-matched HR: 0.584; 95% CI: 0.385 to 0.887) was less with BP-DES implantation. There were no significant group differences in the incidences of any revascularization, stroke, and definite or probable stent thrombosis.

 

CONCLUSIONS -  In patients with acute MI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, BP-DES implantation is associated with improved outcomes compared with second-generation DP-DES implantation.