Cargando…

Comparison of Different Types of Drug-Eluting Stents for De Novo Long Coronary Artery Lesions

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for diffuse long lesions remain relatively unfavorable. Prior clinical trials investigated the relative efficacy and safety of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) in long lesions. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the relativ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kang, Do-Yoon, Jang, Jae-Sik, Chang, Mineok, Lee, Cheol Hyun, Lee, Pil Hyung, Ahn, Jung-Min, Lee, Seung-Whan, Kim, Young-Hak, Park, Seong-Wook, Park, Duk-Woo, Park, Seung-Jung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9627890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36339368
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacasi.2022.02.009
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for diffuse long lesions remain relatively unfavorable. Prior clinical trials investigated the relative efficacy and safety of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) in long lesions. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the relative performance of different types of DES for de novo long (≥25 mm) coronary artery lesions. METHODS: Using a pooled analysis of individual data of 1,450 patients from 3 randomized clinical trials, we compared angiographic and clinical outcomes of 5 different types of DES: 224 patients with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES), 255 with platinum-chromium EES, 250 with Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents, 245 with biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents, and 476 with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss at 9 months. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was not significantly different between 4 second-generation DES and 1 first-generation SES (0.17 ± 0.41 mm in cobalt-chromium EES; 0.11 ± 0.37 in platinum-chromium EES: 0.14 ± 0.38 in Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; 0.14 ± 0.38 in biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents; or 0.10 ± 0.37 in SES, respectively, overall P = 0.38). Also, there were no significant between-group differences with respect to death, myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 12 months. In the multiple treatment propensity-score analysis, the risk of angiographic and clinical outcomes was also similar among several types of DES. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient-level pooled analysis, several second-generation DES showed similar angiographic and clinical outcomes in patients with de novo long coronary lesions. (Percutaneous Treatment of LONG Native Coronary Lesions With Drug-Eluting Stent-III [LONG-DES-III]; NCT01078038; Percutaneous Treatment of LONG Native Coronary Lesions With Drug-Eluting Stent-IV [LONG-DES-IV]; NCT01186094; and Everolimus-eluting [PROMUS-ELEMENT] vs. Biolimus A9-Eluting [NOBORI] Stents for Long-Coronary Lesions [LONG-DES-V]; NCT01186120)