Cargando…
Five-year clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents according to on-label and off-label use
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the clinical outcomes of ‘on-label’ and ‘off-label’ drug-eluting stents (DESs) over a 5-year follow-up period. METHODS: A total of 929 patients that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with DESs were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups according to on...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Association of Internal Medicine
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4939495/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27017384 http://dx.doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2015.045 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the clinical outcomes of ‘on-label’ and ‘off-label’ drug-eluting stents (DESs) over a 5-year follow-up period. METHODS: A total of 929 patients that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with DESs were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups according to on-label (n = 449) and off-label (n = 480) indications. Off-label use was defined as implantation of DESs for acute myocardial infarction (MI), very small vessel, a long stenotic lesion, chronic total occlusion, a bifurcation lesion, an ostial lesion, left main coronary artery disease, multivessel disease, a saphenous vein graft lesion, and a lesion with thrombus. Endpoints were composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), which included all-cause death, ischemic-driven target vessel revascularization (Id-TVR), MI, and stent thrombosis (ST). Clinical outcomes in the two groups were compared for up to 5 years postimplantation. RESULTS: At 1 year postimplantation, the off-label group had higher incidences of total MACEs (8.2% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.005), Id-TVR (5.0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.004), and ST (1.7% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.042), and at 5 years postimplantation, the off-label group continued to have higher incidences of total MACEs (17.5% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001), Id-TVR (13.1% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.024), and ST (2.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.021). Multivessel disease and diabetes were found to be independent risk factors of MACE in patients with an off-label indication. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with an on-label DES had better long-term clinical outcomes than those treated with an off-label DES. |
---|