CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

科学研究

Abstract

Recommended Article

Progression of Device-Detected Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation and the Risk of Heart Failure Prognostic impact of baseline glucose levels in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock-a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial Mortality Following Cardiovascular and Bleeding Events Occurring Beyond 1 Year After Coronary Stenting - A Secondary Analysis of the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) Study Successful Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Lesion Using Minimum Contrast Volume with Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Cutoff Value and Long-Term Prediction of Clinical Events by FFR Measured Immediately After Implantation of a Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: 1- to 3-Year Results From the DKCRUSH VII Registry Study Editor's Choice- Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1-year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial Improving the Use of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Therapy With Validated Patient-Centric Risk Estimates Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial

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)