Cargando…

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DESs). METHODS: PubMed, Science Direct, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chongqing VIP databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the safet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lv, Jianfeng, Wu, Yazhou, Zhang, Xingmei, Jing, Tao, Zhang, Li, Tong, Shifei, Song, Zhiyuan, Wang, Mingli, Wang, Gang, Chi, Luxiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403984/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25889197
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40001-015-0110-z
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DESs). METHODS: PubMed, Science Direct, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chongqing VIP databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of BP-DESs versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DESs). Efficacy included the prevalence of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and late lumen loss (LLL), and safety of these stents at the end of follow-up for the selected research studies were compared. RESULTS: A total of 16 qualified original studies that addressed a total of 22,211 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In regard to efficacy, no statistically significant difference in TLR (odds ratio (OR) = 0.94, P = 0.30) or TVR (OR 1.01, P = 0.86) was observed between patients treated with BP-DESs and those with DP-DESs. However, there were significant differences in in-stent LLL (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −0.07, P = 0.005) and in-segment LLL (WMD = −0.03, P = 0.05) between patients treated with BP-DESs and with DP-DESs. In terms of safety, there was no significant difference in overall mortality (OR 0.97, P = 0.67), cardiac death (OR 0.99, P = 0.90), early stent thrombosis (ST) and late ST (OR 0.94, P = 0.76; OR 0.96, P = 0.73), or myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 0.99, P = 0.88) between patients treated with BP-DESs and with DP-DESs. However, there was a statistically significant difference in very late ST (OR 0.69, P = 0.007) between these two groups. In addition, the general trend of the rates of TVR and TLR of BP-DESs groups was lower than DP-DESs groups after a 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: BP-DESs are safe, efficient, and exhibit superior performance to DP-DESs with respect to reducing the occurrence of very late ST and LLL. The general trend of the rates of TVR and TLR of BP-DESs groups was lower than DP-DESs groups after a 1-year follow-up.