HyeYon Yu, Jihun Ahn, Byoung Geol Choi, Soohyung Park, Dong Oh Kang, Cheol Ung Choi, Seung-Woon Rha, Myung Ho Jeong
{"title":"Three-Year Clinical Outcomes With the Cilotax Dual Drug-Eluting Stent vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction","authors":"HyeYon Yu, Jihun Ahn, Byoung Geol Choi, Soohyung Park, Dong Oh Kang, Cheol Ung Choi, Seung-Woon Rha, Myung Ho Jeong","doi":"10.14503/thij-23-8271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>Background:</div><p>This study compared the safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel/cilostazol–eluting Cilotax stents with those of everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Real-world data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were examined.</p><div>Methods:</div><p>A total of 5,472 patients with acute myocardial infarction underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with Cilotax stents (n = 212) or everolimus-eluting stents (n = 5,260). The primary end point was the 3-year rate of target lesion failure. The other end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders by using a logistic regression model; propensity score matching generated 2 well-balanced groups (Cilotax group, n = 180; everolimus-eluting stents group, n = 170; N = 350). After propensity score matching, baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the groups.</p><div>Results:</div><p>After percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with the everolimus-eluting stents group, the Cilotax group more often had major adverse cardiovascular events (24.1% vs 18.5%; <em>P</em> = .042), myocardial infarction (8.0% vs 3.2%; <em>P</em> < .001), target lesion revascularization (8.0% vs 2.6%; <em>P</em> < .001), target vessel revascularization (11.3% vs 4.5%; <em>P</em> < .001), and stent thrombosis (4.7% vs 0.5%; <em>P</em> < .001) before matching. Even after matching, the Cilotax group had more frequent target lesion revascularization (9.4% vs 2.9%; <em>P</em> = .22) and stent thrombosis (5.6% vs 1.2%; <em>P</em> = .34).</p><div>Conclusion:</div><p>In patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, use of the Cilotax stent was associated with higher rates of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis than were everolimus-eluting stents. Use of the Cilotax dual drugeluting stent should be avoided in the treatment of myocardial infarction.</p>","PeriodicalId":22352,"journal":{"name":"Texas Heart Institute journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas Heart Institute journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14503/thij-23-8271","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background:
This study compared the safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel/cilostazol–eluting Cilotax stents with those of everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Real-world data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were examined.
Methods:
A total of 5,472 patients with acute myocardial infarction underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with Cilotax stents (n = 212) or everolimus-eluting stents (n = 5,260). The primary end point was the 3-year rate of target lesion failure. The other end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders by using a logistic regression model; propensity score matching generated 2 well-balanced groups (Cilotax group, n = 180; everolimus-eluting stents group, n = 170; N = 350). After propensity score matching, baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the groups.
Results:
After percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with the everolimus-eluting stents group, the Cilotax group more often had major adverse cardiovascular events (24.1% vs 18.5%; P = .042), myocardial infarction (8.0% vs 3.2%; P < .001), target lesion revascularization (8.0% vs 2.6%; P < .001), target vessel revascularization (11.3% vs 4.5%; P < .001), and stent thrombosis (4.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001) before matching. Even after matching, the Cilotax group had more frequent target lesion revascularization (9.4% vs 2.9%; P = .22) and stent thrombosis (5.6% vs 1.2%; P = .34).
Conclusion:
In patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, use of the Cilotax stent was associated with higher rates of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis than were everolimus-eluting stents. Use of the Cilotax dual drugeluting stent should be avoided in the treatment of myocardial infarction.
背景:这项研究比较了紫杉醇/西洛他唑洗脱Cilotax支架与依维莫司洗脱支架在急性心肌梗死患者中的安全性和有效性。方法:共有5472名急性心肌梗死患者接受了Cilotax支架(212人)或依维莫司洗脱支架(5260人)经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。主要终点是3年靶病变失败率。其他终点为主要不良心血管事件(心源性死亡、靶血管心肌梗死和缺血驱动的靶病变血运重建的综合)、靶血管血运重建和支架血栓形成。进行倾向得分匹配分析是为了利用逻辑回归模型调整潜在的混杂因素;倾向得分匹配产生了两个平衡良好的组别(Cilotax 组,n = 180;依维莫司洗脱支架组,n = 170;N = 350)。结果:经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后,与依维莫司洗脱支架组相比,Cilotax 组发生主要不良心血管事件的比例更高(24.1% vs 18.5%; P = .042)、心肌梗死(8.0% vs 3.2%; P <.001)、靶病变血运重建(8.0% vs 2.6%; P <.001)、靶血管血运重建(11.3% vs 4.5%; P <.001)和支架血栓(4.7% vs 0.5%; P <.001)。结论:在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的急性心肌梗死患者中,与依维莫司洗脱支架相比,Cilotax支架与更高的靶病变血运重建率、靶血管血运重建率和支架血栓形成率相关。在治疗心肌梗死时应避免使用 Cilotax 双药物洗脱支架。
期刊介绍:
For more than 45 years, the Texas Heart Institute Journal has been published by the Texas Heart Institute as part of its medical education program. Our bimonthly peer-reviewed journal enjoys a global audience of physicians, scientists, and healthcare professionals who are contributing to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cardiovascular disease.
The Journal was printed under the name of Cardiovascular Diseases from 1974 through 1981 (ISSN 0093-3546). The name was changed to Texas Heart Institute Journal in 1982 and was printed through 2013 (ISSN 0730-2347). In 2014, the Journal moved to online-only publication. It is indexed by Index Medicus/MEDLINE and by other indexing and abstracting services worldwide. Our full archive is available at PubMed Central.
The Journal invites authors to submit these article types for review:
-Clinical Investigations-
Laboratory Investigations-
Reviews-
Techniques-
Coronary Anomalies-
History of Medicine-
Case Reports/Case Series (Submission Fee: $70.00 USD)-
Images in Cardiovascular Medicine (Submission Fee: $35.00 USD)-
Guest Editorials-
Peabody’s Corner-
Letters to the Editor