Cargando…
Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9649707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36386315 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.974957 |
_version_ | 1784827855736143872 |
---|---|
author | Liu, Yong Xiao, Di Wu, Yang Li, Meng Liu, Jia Zhuang, Rui Ma, Liyong Li, Jingen Zhang, Lijing |
author_facet | Liu, Yong Xiao, Di Wu, Yang Li, Meng Liu, Jia Zhuang, Rui Ma, Liyong Li, Jingen Zhang, Lijing |
author_sort | Liu, Yong |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BRS with DES on clinical outcomes with at least 12 months follow-up. Electronic databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to 1 March 2022 were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome of this study was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Secondary outcomes were a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, all-cause death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) and the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization). The safety outcomes were definite/probable device thrombosis and adverse events. RESULTS: Four randomized clinical trials including 803 participants with a mean age of 60.5 ± 10.8 years were included in this analysis. Patients treated with BRS had a higher risk of the DOCE (RR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.02–2.57, P = 0.04) and MACE (RR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.02–3.08, P = 0.04) compared with patients treated with DES. No significant difference on the POCE (RR 1.33, 95% CI: 0.89–1.98, P = 0.16) and the definite/probable device thrombosis (RR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.46–3.77, P = 0.61) were observed between BRS and DES. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: BRS was associated with a higher risk of DOCE and MACE compared with DES in patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction. Although this seems less effective in preventing DOCE, BRS appears as safe as DES. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=321501], identifier [CRD 42022321501]. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9649707 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96497072022-11-15 Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials Liu, Yong Xiao, Di Wu, Yang Li, Meng Liu, Jia Zhuang, Rui Ma, Liyong Li, Jingen Zhang, Lijing Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BRS with DES on clinical outcomes with at least 12 months follow-up. Electronic databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to 1 March 2022 were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome of this study was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Secondary outcomes were a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, all-cause death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) and the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization). The safety outcomes were definite/probable device thrombosis and adverse events. RESULTS: Four randomized clinical trials including 803 participants with a mean age of 60.5 ± 10.8 years were included in this analysis. Patients treated with BRS had a higher risk of the DOCE (RR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.02–2.57, P = 0.04) and MACE (RR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.02–3.08, P = 0.04) compared with patients treated with DES. No significant difference on the POCE (RR 1.33, 95% CI: 0.89–1.98, P = 0.16) and the definite/probable device thrombosis (RR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.46–3.77, P = 0.61) were observed between BRS and DES. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: BRS was associated with a higher risk of DOCE and MACE compared with DES in patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction. Although this seems less effective in preventing DOCE, BRS appears as safe as DES. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=321501], identifier [CRD 42022321501]. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9649707/ /pubmed/36386315 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.974957 Text en Copyright © 2022 Liu, Xiao, Wu, Li, Liu, Zhuang, Ma, Li and Zhang. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Cardiovascular Medicine Liu, Yong Xiao, Di Wu, Yang Li, Meng Liu, Jia Zhuang, Rui Ma, Liyong Li, Jingen Zhang, Lijing Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials |
title | Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials |
title_full | Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials |
title_fullStr | Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials |
title_short | Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials |
title_sort | bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials |
topic | Cardiovascular Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9649707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36386315 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.974957 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liuyong bioresorbablescaffoldsvsdrugelutingstentsforpatientswithmyocardialinfarctionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrials AT xiaodi bioresorbablescaffoldsvsdrugelutingstentsforpatientswithmyocardialinfarctionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrials AT wuyang bioresorbablescaffoldsvsdrugelutingstentsforpatientswithmyocardialinfarctionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrials AT limeng bioresorbablescaffoldsvsdrugelutingstentsforpatientswithmyocardialinfarctionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrials AT liujia bioresorbablescaffoldsvsdrugelutingstentsforpatientswithmyocardialinfarctionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrials AT zhuangrui bioresorbablescaffoldsvsdrugelutingstentsforpatientswithmyocardialinfarctionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrials AT maliyong bioresorbablescaffoldsvsdrugelutingstentsforpatientswithmyocardialinfarctionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrials AT lijingen bioresorbablescaffoldsvsdrugelutingstentsforpatientswithmyocardialinfarctionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrials AT zhanglijing bioresorbablescaffoldsvsdrugelutingstentsforpatientswithmyocardialinfarctionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrials |