We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Long-term outcome of patients with very small coronary artery disease: A comparison of drug-eluting and bare metal stents.
Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA 2016 December
BACKGROUND: Among patients with very small vessel disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the comparative efficacy of bare metal stents (BMSs) versus drug-eluting stents (DESs) is not frequently addressed. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients with very small vessel disease managed with percutaneous coronary intervention.
METHODS: Our study included 158 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from January 2003 to December 2013. The primary end points were cardiovascular death and target vessel failure, which consisted of cardiovascular death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization.
RESULTS: BMSs were used in 37 patients, while DESs were utilized in 121 patients. During the mean follow-up period of 2.7 ± 2.2 years (median 2.1 years; interquartile range, 1.3-4.2 years), the target vessel failure rate was 48.6% versus 28.1% (BMS vs. DES, p = 0.020) and the cardiovascular death rate was 27% versus 18.2% (BMS vs. DES, p = 0.241). The use of a DES (hazard ratio: 0.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.24-0.79, p = 0.006) remained the most significant predictor of target vessel failure after multivariate analysis. In CKD subgroup analysis, the benefit of a 2.25 mm DES was evident only in the subgroup with CKD, but such a benefit disappeared in those without CKD.
CONCLUSION: Compared with BMSs, implantation of DESs in a patient population with very small vessel disease effectively reduced target vessel failure. However, the beneficial effects of DESs appeared to be evident only in the subgroup with CKD.
METHODS: Our study included 158 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from January 2003 to December 2013. The primary end points were cardiovascular death and target vessel failure, which consisted of cardiovascular death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization.
RESULTS: BMSs were used in 37 patients, while DESs were utilized in 121 patients. During the mean follow-up period of 2.7 ± 2.2 years (median 2.1 years; interquartile range, 1.3-4.2 years), the target vessel failure rate was 48.6% versus 28.1% (BMS vs. DES, p = 0.020) and the cardiovascular death rate was 27% versus 18.2% (BMS vs. DES, p = 0.241). The use of a DES (hazard ratio: 0.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.24-0.79, p = 0.006) remained the most significant predictor of target vessel failure after multivariate analysis. In CKD subgroup analysis, the benefit of a 2.25 mm DES was evident only in the subgroup with CKD, but such a benefit disappeared in those without CKD.
CONCLUSION: Compared with BMSs, implantation of DESs in a patient population with very small vessel disease effectively reduced target vessel failure. However, the beneficial effects of DESs appeared to be evident only in the subgroup with CKD.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app