We have located links that may give you full text access.
Second generation drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention of the proximal left anterior descending artery: An analysis of the BASKET-PROVE I and II trials.
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2018 April 2
OBJECTIVES: To compare mid-term outcomes between patients undergoing proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second generation drug-eluting stent (DES) or bare-metal stent (BMS).
BACKGROUND: PCI with BMS and first-generation DES have shown to be safe options for the treatment of proximal LAD stenosis, however associated with considerable reintervention rates. Overall, second-generation DES has proven to be superior to BMS and first-generation DES, nevertheless, its effect for proximal LAD PCI has not previously been reported.
METHODS: We analyzed 2-year outcomes of 1,100 patients from the BASKET-PROVE I and II trials, referred for proximal LAD PCI with second generation DES (n = 680) or BMS (n = 420).
RESULTS: The cumulative 2-year incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularization (TVR)) was lower in second generation DES than in BMS treated patients (7.3% vs. 12.3%; HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39/0.85), mainly driven by a reduced rate of TVR (3.7% vs. 10.0%; HR 0.35, CI 0.21/0.58). No difference was found in cardiac death (1.9% vs. 1.9%; HR 1.01, CI 0.42/2.44) and MI (4.4% vs. 4.7%; HR 0.93, CI 0.53/1.64). The benefit of DES use seemed to be more prominent in female patients with a reduction in MACE (P for interaction = 0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with proximal LAD stenosis, treatment with second-generation DES was associated with reduced 2-year rates of adverse cardiac events and TVR compared to BMS, with reintervention rates similar to those earlier reported from bypass surgery.
BACKGROUND: PCI with BMS and first-generation DES have shown to be safe options for the treatment of proximal LAD stenosis, however associated with considerable reintervention rates. Overall, second-generation DES has proven to be superior to BMS and first-generation DES, nevertheless, its effect for proximal LAD PCI has not previously been reported.
METHODS: We analyzed 2-year outcomes of 1,100 patients from the BASKET-PROVE I and II trials, referred for proximal LAD PCI with second generation DES (n = 680) or BMS (n = 420).
RESULTS: The cumulative 2-year incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularization (TVR)) was lower in second generation DES than in BMS treated patients (7.3% vs. 12.3%; HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39/0.85), mainly driven by a reduced rate of TVR (3.7% vs. 10.0%; HR 0.35, CI 0.21/0.58). No difference was found in cardiac death (1.9% vs. 1.9%; HR 1.01, CI 0.42/2.44) and MI (4.4% vs. 4.7%; HR 0.93, CI 0.53/1.64). The benefit of DES use seemed to be more prominent in female patients with a reduction in MACE (P for interaction = 0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with proximal LAD stenosis, treatment with second-generation DES was associated with reduced 2-year rates of adverse cardiac events and TVR compared to BMS, with reintervention rates similar to those earlier reported from bypass surgery.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
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