{"title":"冠心病生物可吸收支架疗法的五年疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析》。","authors":"Fei-Fei Yang, Hui Song, Wei-Bin Qin, Wei-Zhi Tang, Ling-Jun Zhan, Li-Wen Zhang, Gui-Xin He","doi":"10.31083/j.rcm2507238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared to metallic stents for the treatment of coronary heart disease remains controversial. The analysis of clinical outcomes at five years following the initial treatment has yet to be reviewed. This study sought to assess the five-year outcomes in randomized controlled trials of BVS in the treatment of coronary heart disease using a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic database search was conducted from their inception to June 30th, 2023 using various Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms including: \"Coronary Disease\", \"Bioresorbable stent\", \"Randomized controlled trials\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After a rigorous selection process, a total of five high-quality articles were finally included in this study. Each trial demonstrated a low risk of bias. After 5 years, bioresorbable stents showed outcomes similar to conventional metal stents in terms of cardiac mortality. However, they were inferior in terms of lesion revascularization rates, in-stent thrombosis rates, target lesion failure, target vessel failure, and myocardial infarction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While bioresorbable stents are comparable to metallic stents in terms of cardiac mortality rates, they exhibit significant drawbacks that warrant clinical consideration.</p>","PeriodicalId":20989,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11317335/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Five-Year Outcomes of Bioresorbable Stent Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Fei-Fei Yang, Hui Song, Wei-Bin Qin, Wei-Zhi Tang, Ling-Jun Zhan, Li-Wen Zhang, Gui-Xin He\",\"doi\":\"10.31083/j.rcm2507238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared to metallic stents for the treatment of coronary heart disease remains controversial. The analysis of clinical outcomes at five years following the initial treatment has yet to be reviewed. This study sought to assess the five-year outcomes in randomized controlled trials of BVS in the treatment of coronary heart disease using a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic database search was conducted from their inception to June 30th, 2023 using various Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms including: \\\"Coronary Disease\\\", \\\"Bioresorbable stent\\\", \\\"Randomized controlled trials\\\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After a rigorous selection process, a total of five high-quality articles were finally included in this study. Each trial demonstrated a low risk of bias. After 5 years, bioresorbable stents showed outcomes similar to conventional metal stents in terms of cardiac mortality. However, they were inferior in terms of lesion revascularization rates, in-stent thrombosis rates, target lesion failure, target vessel failure, and myocardial infarction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While bioresorbable stents are comparable to metallic stents in terms of cardiac mortality rates, they exhibit significant drawbacks that warrant clinical consideration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11317335/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2507238\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2507238","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Five-Year Outcomes of Bioresorbable Stent Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Background: The efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared to metallic stents for the treatment of coronary heart disease remains controversial. The analysis of clinical outcomes at five years following the initial treatment has yet to be reviewed. This study sought to assess the five-year outcomes in randomized controlled trials of BVS in the treatment of coronary heart disease using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods: A systematic database search was conducted from their inception to June 30th, 2023 using various Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms including: "Coronary Disease", "Bioresorbable stent", "Randomized controlled trials".
Results: After a rigorous selection process, a total of five high-quality articles were finally included in this study. Each trial demonstrated a low risk of bias. After 5 years, bioresorbable stents showed outcomes similar to conventional metal stents in terms of cardiac mortality. However, they were inferior in terms of lesion revascularization rates, in-stent thrombosis rates, target lesion failure, target vessel failure, and myocardial infarction.
Conclusions: While bioresorbable stents are comparable to metallic stents in terms of cardiac mortality rates, they exhibit significant drawbacks that warrant clinical consideration.
期刊介绍:
RCM is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal. RCM publishes research articles, review papers and short communications on cardiovascular medicine as well as research on cardiovascular disease. We aim to provide a forum for publishing papers which explore the pathogenesis and promote the progression of cardiac and vascular diseases. We also seek to establish an interdisciplinary platform, focusing on translational issues, to facilitate the advancement of research, clinical treatment and diagnostic procedures. Heart surgery, cardiovascular imaging, risk factors and various clinical cardiac & vascular research will be considered.