Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent versus polymer-permanent drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent (PFS) versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stent (PPDES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain controversial. Our meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of PFS with those...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gao, Kang, Sun, Yiguang, Yang, Ming, Han, Ling, Chen, Liwei, Hu, Wenze, Chen, Ping, Li, Xiaohong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5518142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28724348
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-017-0603-5
_version_ 1783251434643390464
author Gao, Kang
Sun, Yiguang
Yang, Ming
Han, Ling
Chen, Liwei
Hu, Wenze
Chen, Ping
Li, Xiaohong
author_facet Gao, Kang
Sun, Yiguang
Yang, Ming
Han, Ling
Chen, Liwei
Hu, Wenze
Chen, Ping
Li, Xiaohong
author_sort Gao, Kang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent (PFS) versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stent (PPDES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain controversial. Our meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of PFS with those of PPDES in patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Clinical Trials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary endpoints were incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) and target-lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints included the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD), late lumen loss (LLL), and diameter stenosis (DS). Subgroup analyses were also conducted based on the follow-up time. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs met the including criteria, and 8616 patients were included in the study. No significant differences were observed between PFS and PPDES treatments in the incidence of ST (RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.62–1.31; P = 0.58; I (2) = 0), TLR (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76–1.00; P = 0.05; I (2) = 37%), CD (RR 0.89; 95% CI: 0.72–1.10; P = 0.28; I (2) = 0), MI (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.71–1.05; P = 0.15; I (2) = 0), LLL (SMD 0.01; 95% CI: -0.29–0.30; P = 0.96; I(2) = 90%), and DS (SMD -0.01; 95% CI: - 0.25 to 0.23; P = 0.93; I(2) = 83%). Meanwhile, the patients with PFS had a lower incidence of MACE (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78–0.97; P = 0.01; I (2) = 0) than those with PPDES. CONCLUSION: In the overall analysis, patients with PFS presented a lower risk of MACE versus PPDES, but no significant difference were obtained in the risk of ST, TLR, MI, CD, DDD and DS. In the Short term follow up, patients with PSF presented a lower risk of TLR compared with PPDES. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0603-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5518142
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55181422017-08-16 Efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent versus polymer-permanent drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials Gao, Kang Sun, Yiguang Yang, Ming Han, Ling Chen, Liwei Hu, Wenze Chen, Ping Li, Xiaohong BMC Cardiovasc Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent (PFS) versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stent (PPDES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain controversial. Our meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of PFS with those of PPDES in patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Clinical Trials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary endpoints were incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) and target-lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints included the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD), late lumen loss (LLL), and diameter stenosis (DS). Subgroup analyses were also conducted based on the follow-up time. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs met the including criteria, and 8616 patients were included in the study. No significant differences were observed between PFS and PPDES treatments in the incidence of ST (RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.62–1.31; P = 0.58; I (2) = 0), TLR (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76–1.00; P = 0.05; I (2) = 37%), CD (RR 0.89; 95% CI: 0.72–1.10; P = 0.28; I (2) = 0), MI (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.71–1.05; P = 0.15; I (2) = 0), LLL (SMD 0.01; 95% CI: -0.29–0.30; P = 0.96; I(2) = 90%), and DS (SMD -0.01; 95% CI: - 0.25 to 0.23; P = 0.93; I(2) = 83%). Meanwhile, the patients with PFS had a lower incidence of MACE (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78–0.97; P = 0.01; I (2) = 0) than those with PPDES. CONCLUSION: In the overall analysis, patients with PFS presented a lower risk of MACE versus PPDES, but no significant difference were obtained in the risk of ST, TLR, MI, CD, DDD and DS. In the Short term follow up, patients with PSF presented a lower risk of TLR compared with PPDES. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0603-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5518142/ /pubmed/28724348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-017-0603-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gao, Kang
Sun, Yiguang
Yang, Ming
Han, Ling
Chen, Liwei
Hu, Wenze
Chen, Ping
Li, Xiaohong
Efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent versus polymer-permanent drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials
title Efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent versus polymer-permanent drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials
title_full Efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent versus polymer-permanent drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent versus polymer-permanent drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent versus polymer-permanent drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials
title_short Efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent versus polymer-permanent drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials
title_sort efficacy and safety of polymer-free stent versus polymer-permanent drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5518142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28724348
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-017-0603-5
work_keys_str_mv AT gaokang efficacyandsafetyofpolymerfreestentversuspolymerpermanentdrugelutingstentinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontroltrials
AT sunyiguang efficacyandsafetyofpolymerfreestentversuspolymerpermanentdrugelutingstentinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontroltrials
AT yangming efficacyandsafetyofpolymerfreestentversuspolymerpermanentdrugelutingstentinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontroltrials
AT hanling efficacyandsafetyofpolymerfreestentversuspolymerpermanentdrugelutingstentinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontroltrials
AT chenliwei efficacyandsafetyofpolymerfreestentversuspolymerpermanentdrugelutingstentinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontroltrials
AT huwenze efficacyandsafetyofpolymerfreestentversuspolymerpermanentdrugelutingstentinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontroltrials
AT chenping efficacyandsafetyofpolymerfreestentversuspolymerpermanentdrugelutingstentinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontroltrials
AT lixiaohong efficacyandsafetyofpolymerfreestentversuspolymerpermanentdrugelutingstentinpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontroltrials