We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Polymer-free versus permanent polymer-coated drug eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Journal of Interventional Cardiology 2018 October
BACKGROUND: Polymer-free drug eluting stents (PF-DES) were developed, in part, to overcome risk of late ischemic events observed with permanent polymer-coated DES (PP-DES). However, trial results are inconsistent with longer-term safety and efficacy of PF-DES remaining unknown. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials assessing outcomes of patients receiving PF-DES versus PP-DES for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD).
METHODS: Electronic searches were performed for randomized trials comparing outcomes between PF-DES and PP-DES. Trials reporting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), all-cause death, target lesion/vessel revascularization (TLR/TVR), and late lumen loss (LLL) were included. Analyses were performed at longest follow-up and landmarked beyond 1-year.
RESULTS: Twelve trials (6,943 patients) were included. There was no significant difference in MACE between PF-DES and PP-DES at longest follow-up (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.96, 95%CI 0.85-1.10, P = 0.59) or landmark analysis beyond 1-year (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.76-1.20, P = 0.70). Although PF-DES were associated with a significant reduction in all-cause death (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.72-1.00, P < 0.05), this effect was not present on landmark analysis beyond 1-year (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.73-1.10, P = 0.30). There were no differences observed for MI (OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.77-1.28, P = 0.99) or ST (OR 0.95, 95%CI 0.54-1.68, P = 0.86), with similar efficacy outcomes including TVR (OR 1.07, 95%CI 0.91-1.26, P = 0.42), TLR (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.88-1.21, P = 0.68) and angiographic LLL (pooled mean difference 0.01 mm, 95%CI -0.08 to 0.11, P = 0.76).
CONCLUSIONS: PF-DES are as safe and efficacious as PP-DES for the treatment of patients with CAD, but do not significantly reduce late ischemic complications.
METHODS: Electronic searches were performed for randomized trials comparing outcomes between PF-DES and PP-DES. Trials reporting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), all-cause death, target lesion/vessel revascularization (TLR/TVR), and late lumen loss (LLL) were included. Analyses were performed at longest follow-up and landmarked beyond 1-year.
RESULTS: Twelve trials (6,943 patients) were included. There was no significant difference in MACE between PF-DES and PP-DES at longest follow-up (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.96, 95%CI 0.85-1.10, P = 0.59) or landmark analysis beyond 1-year (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.76-1.20, P = 0.70). Although PF-DES were associated with a significant reduction in all-cause death (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.72-1.00, P < 0.05), this effect was not present on landmark analysis beyond 1-year (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.73-1.10, P = 0.30). There were no differences observed for MI (OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.77-1.28, P = 0.99) or ST (OR 0.95, 95%CI 0.54-1.68, P = 0.86), with similar efficacy outcomes including TVR (OR 1.07, 95%CI 0.91-1.26, P = 0.42), TLR (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.88-1.21, P = 0.68) and angiographic LLL (pooled mean difference 0.01 mm, 95%CI -0.08 to 0.11, P = 0.76).
CONCLUSIONS: PF-DES are as safe and efficacious as PP-DES for the treatment of patients with CAD, but do not significantly reduce late ischemic complications.
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