CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

推荐文献

Abstract

Recommended Article

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Interventional Cardiology: From Decision-Making Aid to Advanced Interventional Procedure Assistance Qualitative and Mixed Methods Provide Unique Contributions to Outcomes Research Can the Vanishing Stent Reappear? Fix the Technique, or Fix the Device? Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial Healthy Behavior, Risk Factor Control, and Survival in the COURAGE Trial Dynamic atrioventricular delay programming improves ventricular electrical synchronization as evaluated by 3D vectorcardiography Limitations of Repeat Revascularization as an Outcome Measure Alirocumab Reduces Total Nonfatal Cardiovascular and Fatal Events in the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Trial

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.