Cargando…

Safety and Efficacy of Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice: Insights from the Multicenter Grand-DES Registry

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the Xience Prime/Xience V/Promus EES and Biomatrix/Biomatrix Flex/Nobori BES with resolute integrity/resolute ZES using the grand drug-eluting stent (Grand-DES) registry. BACKGROUND: Currently, new-generation drug-eluting sten...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ki, You-Jeong, Park, Kyung Woo, Kang, Jeehoon, Kim, Chee-Hoon, Han, Jung-Kyu, Yang, Han-Mo, Kang, Hyun-Jae, Koo, Bon-Kwon, Kim, Hyo-Soo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7061140/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32180687
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/3872704
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the Xience Prime/Xience V/Promus EES and Biomatrix/Biomatrix Flex/Nobori BES with resolute integrity/resolute ZES using the grand drug-eluting stent (Grand-DES) registry. BACKGROUND: Currently, new-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) are used as the standard of care in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. No study has simultaneously compared everolimus-eluting stent (EES), biolimus-eluting stent (BES), and zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). METHODS: Stent-related composite outcomes (target lesion failure) and patient-related composite outcomes were compared in crude and propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: Of the 17,286 patients in the Grand-DES group, 5,137, 2,970, and 4,990 patients in the EES, BES, and ZES groups completed a three-year follow-up. In the propensity score-matched cohort, the stent-related outcome (EES vs. BES vs. ZES; 5.9% vs. 6.7% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, CONCLUSIONS: In this robust real-world registry with unrestricted use of EES, BES, and ZES, the three stent groups showed comparable safety and efficacy at the 3-year follow-up.