AIMS: Previous studies for approved indications (on-label) have shown the good safety and efficacy profiles of the Nobori DES. We conducted a prospective, multicentre study to validate the clinical performance of this stent in a real-world setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 3,067 consecutive patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention with the Nobori DES were enrolled in the NOBORI 2 registry. At one and two years, 97% and 95% of patients, respectively, were available for follow-up. The rates of target lesion failure (TLF), cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisations were: 3.9%, 1.2%, 1.9% and 2.2% at one year and 5.1%, 1.6%, 2.4% and 3.0% at two years. Overall, 2,242 patients (73%) were treated for at least one off-label indication. When comparing off-label and on-label groups, the results were: TLF 4.5% vs. 2.2%, p=0.003 at one year and 5.9% vs. 2.8%, p=0.001 at two years. The rate of stent thrombosis was 0.68%, and 0.80% at one and two years, respectively with no difference between the off-label and on-label groups (0.76% vs. 0.48%, p=0.6 and 0.89% vs. 0.61%, p=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: The promising results previously observed in lower risk patients can be replicated in daily practice. As expected, in off-label indications, rates of adverse events were higher. Nevertheless, our results suggest the good and sustained performance of this stent system in high-risk patients with significant comorbidities and/or complex lesions.
AIMS: Previous studies for approved indications (on-label) have shown the good safety and efficacy profiles of the Nobori DES. We conducted a prospective, multicentre study to validate the clinical performance of this stent in a real-world setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 3,067 consecutive patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention with the Nobori DES were enrolled in the NOBORI 2 registry. At one and two years, 97% and 95% of patients, respectively, were available for follow-up. The rates of target lesion failure (TLF), cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisations were: 3.9%, 1.2%, 1.9% and 2.2% at one year and 5.1%, 1.6%, 2.4% and 3.0% at two years. Overall, 2,242 patients (73%) were treated for at least one off-label indication. When comparing off-label and on-label groups, the results were: TLF 4.5% vs. 2.2%, p=0.003 at one year and 5.9% vs. 2.8%, p=0.001 at two years. The rate of stent thrombosis was 0.68%, and 0.80% at one and two years, respectively with no difference between the off-label and on-label groups (0.76% vs. 0.48%, p=0.6 and 0.89% vs. 0.61%, p=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: The promising results previously observed in lower risk patients can be replicated in daily practice. As expected, in off-label indications, rates of adverse events were higher. Nevertheless, our results suggest the good and sustained performance of this stent system in high-risk patients with significant comorbidities and/or complex lesions.
Authors: Eric Maupas; Janusz Lipiecki; Raphy Levy; Benjamin Faurie; Bernard Karsenty; Marc Eric Moulichon; François Brunelle; Luc Maillard; Fabien de Poli; Thierry Lefèvre Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Abhilash Akinapelli; Jack P Chen; Kristine Roy; Joseph Donnelly; Keith Dawkins; Barbara Huibregtse; Dongming Hou Journal: Curr Cardiol Rev Date: 2017
Authors: Selina Vlieger; Gian B Danzi; Floris Kauer; Rohit M Oemrawsingh; Sinisa Stojkovic; Alexander J J IJsselmuiden; Helen Routledge; Peep Laanmets; Marco Roffi; Ole Fröbert; Pascual Baello; Adrian Wlodarczak; Angel Puentes; Jawed Polad; David Hildick-Smith Journal: Coron Artery Dis Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 1.439
Authors: Farzin Fath-Ordoubadi; Erik Spaepen; Magdi El-Omar; Douglas G Fraser; Muhammad A Khan; Ludwig Neyses; Gian B Danzi; Ariel Roguin; Dragica Paunovic; Mamas A Mamas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240