Cargando…

Comparison between the Outcomes of Using Biodegradable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents and Those of Using Durable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND: Many randomised control studies showed that percutaneous coronary interventions using biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) offer a safe and effective alternative to durable-polymer DES. However, not many studies have discussed its use in the setting of acute coronary syndromes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fawzy, Abd-Allah Y., Kenawi, Mahmoud M., Aziz, Ahmed Abd El, Moharam, Ayman N., Attia, Ibrahim M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Republic of Macedonia 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6542403/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31198456
http://dx.doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.345
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Many randomised control studies showed that percutaneous coronary interventions using biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) offer a safe and effective alternative to durable-polymer DES. However, not many studies have discussed its use in the setting of acute coronary syndromes. AIM: We aim to compare the biodegradable-polymer DES with durable-polymer DES when it comes to reducing the incidence of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) associated with adverse events. METHODS: We enrolled 205 patients presenting with NSTEACS and a TIMI risk score ≥ 3 in this study and divided them into two groups, group A and group B. Biodegradable-polymer DESs were exclusively used in group A, while durable-polymer DESs were used in group B. Major adverse events were reported in both groups during the hospital stay and patients were followed-up for 1 year. RESULTS: In our patients, we intervened on 390 diseased segments in a total of 360 vessels. After intervention, TIMI 0 was achieved in 0.97%, TIMI 1 in 1.46%, TIMI 2 in 2.45%, and TIMI 3 in 95.12% of the treated segments (P-value= 0.677). We implanted 121 biodegradable-polymer DESs and 146 durable-polymer DESs. Clinical success was achieved in 95.12% of our cases. We had 55 patients who needed repeated coronary angiography within 1 year (15 patients treated with biodegradable-polymer DES and 24 patients treated with durable-polymer DES). Eighteen patients experienced angina pains (8 patients treated with biodegradable-polymer DES and 10 patients treated with durable-polymer DES). Only 5 patients needed TLR (2 patients treated with biodegradable-polymer DES and 3 patients treated with durable -polymer DES) (P-value = 0.591), three of them had a myocardial infarction with documented angiographic evidence of significant in-stent restenosis (1 patient treated with biodegradable-polymer DES and 2 patients treated with durable-polymer DESs). CONCLUSION: Biodegradable-polymer DES represents a comparable alternative to durable-polymer DES in the setting of acute coronary syndromes.