We have located links that may give you full text access.
Effect of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus biocompatible polymer everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis.
Acta Cardiologica 2017 April
OBJECTIVE: Biocompatible polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are associated with risk of stent thrombosis (ST); biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) were designed to reduce these risks. However, the long-term benefits are not completely clear.
METHOD: We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized studies identified in systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database. Primary outcome was the risk of ST.
RESULTS: Twelve studies (11,692 patients) were included. Overall, compared with EES, BP-DES were associated with a broadly equivalent risk of definite and probable ST (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.50; P = 0.71; I(2 )= 0.0%), early ST (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.78 to 6.47; P = 0.13; I(2 )= 0.0%), late ST (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 0.42 to 30.58; P = 0.25; I(2 )= 0.0%) and very late ST (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.05 to 5.52; P = 0.57). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.32; P = 0.54; I(2 )= 0.0%), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.30; P = 0.47; I(2 )= 0.0%), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.21; P = 0.80; I(2 )= 12.0%), and major adverse cardiac events (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = 0.53; I(2 )= 0.0%). Furthermore, angiographic data showed that in-stent and in-segment late luminal loss were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with biocompatible polymer EES, biodegradable polymer stents appear to have equivalent clinical benefits.
METHOD: We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized studies identified in systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database. Primary outcome was the risk of ST.
RESULTS: Twelve studies (11,692 patients) were included. Overall, compared with EES, BP-DES were associated with a broadly equivalent risk of definite and probable ST (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.50; P = 0.71; I(2 )= 0.0%), early ST (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.78 to 6.47; P = 0.13; I(2 )= 0.0%), late ST (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 0.42 to 30.58; P = 0.25; I(2 )= 0.0%) and very late ST (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.05 to 5.52; P = 0.57). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.32; P = 0.54; I(2 )= 0.0%), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.30; P = 0.47; I(2 )= 0.0%), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.21; P = 0.80; I(2 )= 12.0%), and major adverse cardiac events (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = 0.53; I(2 )= 0.0%). Furthermore, angiographic data showed that in-stent and in-segment late luminal loss were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with biocompatible polymer EES, biodegradable polymer stents appear to have equivalent clinical benefits.
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