Literature DB >> 26585615

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of New-Generation Versus Early-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents According to Complexity of Coronary Artery Disease: A Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 6,081 Patients.

Raffaele Piccolo1, Thomas Pilgrim1, Dik Heg2, Anna Franzone1, Julie Rat-Wirtzler2, Lorenz Räber1, Sigmund Silber3, Patrick W Serruys4, Peter Jüni5, Stephan Windecker6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the 2-year safety and effectiveness of new- versus early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) according to the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) as assessed by the SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score.
BACKGROUND: New-generation DES are considered the standard-of-care in patients with CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, there are few data investigating the effects of new- over early-generation DES according to the anatomic complexity of CAD.
METHODS: Patient-level data from 4 contemporary, all-comers trials were pooled. The primary device-oriented clinical endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (TLR). The principal effectiveness and safety endpoints were TLR and definite stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated at 2 years for overall comparisons, as well as stratified for patients with lower (SYNTAX score ≤11) and higher complexity (SYNTAX score >11).
RESULTS: A total of 6,081 patients were included in the study. New-generation DES (n = 4,554) compared with early-generation DES (n = 1,527) reduced the primary endpoint (HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.63 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) without interaction (p = 0.219) between patients with lower (HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.64 to 1.16]; p = 0.322) versus higher CAD complexity (HR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.54 to 0.85]; p = 0.001). In patients with SYNTAX score >11, new-generation DES significantly reduced TLR (HR: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.26 to 0.51]; p < 0.001) and definite ST (HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.15 to 0.55]; p < 0.001) to a greater extent than in the low-complexity group (TLR pint = 0.059; ST pint = 0.013). New-generation DES decreased the risk of cardiac mortality in patients with SYNTAX score >11 (HR: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.27 to 0.76]; p = 0.003) but not in patients with SYNTAX score ≤11 (pint = 0.042).
CONCLUSIONS: New-generation DES improve clinical outcomes compared with early-generation DES, with a greater safety and effectiveness in patients with SYNTAX score >11.
Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SYNTAX score; coronary artery disease complexity; drug-eluting stent(s); percutaneous coronary intervention

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26585615     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.08.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1936-8798            Impact factor:   11.195


  11 in total

1.  Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for complex coronary anatomies: "Icarus' flight" for interventional cardiologists?

Authors:  Salvatore Cassese; Adnan Kastrati; Massimiliano Fusaro
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2017-06

2.  Novel treatments for in-stent restenosis: sirolimus-eluting balloons enter the arena.

Authors:  Raffaele Piccolo; Tullio Niglio; Anna Franzone; Bruno Trimarco; Giovanni Esposito
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Coronary artery disease and myocardial revascularization in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Raffaele Piccolo; Anna Franzone; Thomas Pilgrim
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 4.  Revascularization in complex multivessel coronary artery disease after FREEDOM. Is there an indication for PCI and drug-eluting stents?

Authors:  K C Koskinas; S Windecker
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 5.  The Ultimaster Biodegradable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent: An Updated Review of Clinical Evidence.

Authors:  Alberto Chisari; Anna Maria Pistritto; Raffaele Piccolo; Alessio La Manna; Gian Battista Danzi
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 5.923

6.  Impact of Chronic Kidney Disease on Clinical Outcomes in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Era of Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents.

Authors:  Su-Min Kim; Dipti Ranjan Tripathy; Sang Wook Park; Bonil Park; Jung-Woo Son; Jun-Won Lee; Young Jin Youn; Sung-Gyun Ahn; Min Soo Ahn; Jang-Young Kim; Byung-Su Yoo; Seung-Hwan Lee; Junghan Yoon
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 3.243

7.  Five-year clinical follow-up of the STENTYS self-apposing stent in complex coronary anatomy: a single-centre experience with report of specific angiographic indications.

Authors:  H Lu; R J Bekker; M J Grundeken; P Woudstra; J J Wykrzykowska; J G P Tijssen; R J de Winter; K T Koch
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.380

8.  Stent thrombosis rates the first year and beyond with new- and old-generation drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents.

Authors:  Christoph Varenhorst; Martin Lindholm; Giovanna Sarno; Göran Olivecrona; Ulf Jensen; Johan Nilsson; Jörg Carlsson; Stefan James; Bo Lagerqvist
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 5.460

9.  The Predictors of Target Lesion Revascularization and Rate of In-Stent Restenosis in the Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Era.

Authors:  Chengbin Zheng; Jeehoon Kang; Kyung Woo Park; Jung-Kyu Han; Han-Mo Yang; Hyun-Jae Kang; Bon-Kwon Koo; Hyo-Soo Kim
Journal:  J Interv Cardiol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 10.  The Role of Clopidogrel in 2020: A Reappraisal.

Authors:  Giuseppe Patti; Giuseppe Micieli; Claudio Cimminiello; Leonardo Bolognese
Journal:  Cardiovasc Ther       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 3.023

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.