CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

科学研究

Abstract

Recommended Article

National assessment of early β-blocker therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction in China, 2001-2011: The China Patient-centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events (PEACE)-Retrospective AMI Study Association of All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality With High Levels of Physical Activity and Concurrent Coronary Artery Calcification Clinical Significance of Concordance or Discordance Between Fractional Flow Reserve and Coronary Flow Reserve for Coronary Physiological Indices, Microvascular Resistance, and Prognosis After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Combining IVUS and Optical Coherence Tomography for More Accurate Coronary Cap Thickness Quantification and Stress/Strain Calculations: A Patient-Specific Three-Dimensional Fluid-Structure Interaction Modeling Approach Association Between Diastolic Dysfunction and Health Status Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Cardiovascular Disease in Chronic Kidney Disease: Pathophysiological Insights and Therapeutic Options Treatment effects of systematic two-stent and provisional stenting techniques in patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions: rationale and design of a prospective, randomised and multicentre DEFINITION II trial 1-Year Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Primary Angioplasty for Myocardial Infarction Treated With Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor

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)