OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of rapamycin-eluting stents (RES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: RES and PES differ significantly with respect to polymer coating and antiproliferative drugs. It is not yet clear whether there are any differences between RES and PES with regard to clinical outcomes. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RES with PES in Medline and the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews. A meta-analysis was done of all available randomized studies comparing PES with RES. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, number of patients and clinical outcomes was extracted by two investigators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The primary outcome was reintervention, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Stent restenosis, myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause mortality were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs of RES versus PES with a total number of 10,147 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Indication for angioplasty was either acute coronary syndrome or stable angina. The mean follow-up period ranged from 6 to 24 months. The rates of TLR were 4.9% vs. 7.0%; p = 0.0009 and the rates of TVR were 5.1 vs. 8.3%; p < 0.001 for RES vs. PES, respectively. The incidence of stent restenosis was 3.9% for RES vs. 5.3% for PES; p = 0.004. Rates of MI and all-cause mortality were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrates that, as compared to PES, RES seems to be associated with a lower risk of reintervention and stent restenosis. The risk of MI and all-cause death was similar between the two stents.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of rapamycin-eluting stents (RES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: RES and PES differ significantly with respect to polymer coating and antiproliferative drugs. It is not yet clear whether there are any differences between RES and PES with regard to clinical outcomes. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RES with PES in Medline and the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews. A meta-analysis was done of all available randomized studies comparing PES with RES. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, number of patients and clinical outcomes was extracted by two investigators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The primary outcome was reintervention, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Stent restenosis, myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause mortality were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs of RES versus PES with a total number of 10,147 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Indication for angioplasty was either acute coronary syndrome or stable angina. The mean follow-up period ranged from 6 to 24 months. The rates of TLR were 4.9% vs. 7.0%; p = 0.0009 and the rates of TVR were 5.1 vs. 8.3%; p < 0.001 for RES vs. PES, respectively. The incidence of stent restenosis was 3.9% for RES vs. 5.3% for PES; p = 0.004. Rates of MI and all-cause mortality were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrates that, as compared to PES, RES seems to be associated with a lower risk of reintervention and stent restenosis. The risk of MI and all-cause death was similar between the two stents.
Authors: Todd M Bell; Virginia Espina; Svetlana Senina; Caitlin Woodson; Ashwini Brahms; Brian Carey; Shih-Chao Lin; Lindsay Lundberg; Chelsea Pinkham; Alan Baer; Claudius Mueller; Elizabeth A Chlipala; Faye Sharman; Cynthia de la Fuente; Lance Liotta; Kylene Kehn-Hall Journal: Antiviral Res Date: 2017-04-23 Impact factor: 5.970
Authors: T I Arefieva; T L Krasnikova; A V Potekhina; N U Ruleva; P I Nikitin; T I Ksenevich; B G Gorshkov; M V Sidorova; Zh D Bespalova; N B Kukhtina; S I Provatorov; E A Noeva; E I Chazov Journal: Inflamm Res Date: 2011-07-10 Impact factor: 4.575