在肾功能受损的急性心肌梗死患者中比较佐他洛利莫司、依维莫司和比奥利莫司洗脱支架的长期临床疗效。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Cardiology journal Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-07 DOI:10.5603/CJ.a2021.0099
Seok Oh, Dae Young Hyun, Kyung Hoon Cho, Ju Han Kim, Myung Ho Jeong
{"title":"在肾功能受损的急性心肌梗死患者中比较佐他洛利莫司、依维莫司和比奥利莫司洗脱支架的长期临床疗效。","authors":"Seok Oh, Dae Young Hyun, Kyung Hoon Cho, Ju Han Kim, Myung Ho Jeong","doi":"10.5603/CJ.a2021.0099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is important to determine the best drug-eluting stent (DES) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with renal impairment. In this studythe outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EESs), zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZESs) and biolimus-eluting stents (BESs) were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health registry, a total of 1,470 AMI patients with renal impairment undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled (816 with EES, 345 with ZES, and 309 with BES). Renal impairment was defined as creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² estimated by the Cockcroft-Gault method. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were determined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular accident, any revascularization, rehospitalization and stent thrombosis. All clinical outcomes were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The baseline characteristics of the patients revealed no significant difference between the three groups, except for Killip classification > 2, beta-blockers, lesion type, vascular approach, staged PCI, left main coronary artery (LMCA) complex lesions, LMCA PCI, and the number and length of implanted stents. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, similar clinical outcomes were derived from the unadjusted data between the three DES groups. However, after the inverse probability of treatment weighting, a statistically significant difference was found in non-fatal MI, which implied a higher incidence of non-fatal MI in the ZES group than in the other two DES groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In AMI patients with renal impairment, there was no significant difference between the three stent groups in terms of long-term clinical outcomes, except for non-fatal MI.</p>","PeriodicalId":9492,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology journal","volume":"30 3","pages":"440-452"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/66/3e/cardj-30-3-440.PMC10287071.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes among zotarolimus-, everolimus-, and biolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction patients with renal impairment.\",\"authors\":\"Seok Oh, Dae Young Hyun, Kyung Hoon Cho, Ju Han Kim, Myung Ho Jeong\",\"doi\":\"10.5603/CJ.a2021.0099\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is important to determine the best drug-eluting stent (DES) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with renal impairment. In this studythe outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EESs), zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZESs) and biolimus-eluting stents (BESs) were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health registry, a total of 1,470 AMI patients with renal impairment undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled (816 with EES, 345 with ZES, and 309 with BES). Renal impairment was defined as creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² estimated by the Cockcroft-Gault method. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were determined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular accident, any revascularization, rehospitalization and stent thrombosis. All clinical outcomes were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The baseline characteristics of the patients revealed no significant difference between the three groups, except for Killip classification > 2, beta-blockers, lesion type, vascular approach, staged PCI, left main coronary artery (LMCA) complex lesions, LMCA PCI, and the number and length of implanted stents. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, similar clinical outcomes were derived from the unadjusted data between the three DES groups. However, after the inverse probability of treatment weighting, a statistically significant difference was found in non-fatal MI, which implied a higher incidence of non-fatal MI in the ZES group than in the other two DES groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In AMI patients with renal impairment, there was no significant difference between the three stent groups in terms of long-term clinical outcomes, except for non-fatal MI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiology journal\",\"volume\":\"30 3\",\"pages\":\"440-452\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/66/3e/cardj-30-3-440.PMC10287071.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiology journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2021.0099\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2021.0099","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:确定治疗肾功能受损患者急性心肌梗死(AMI)的最佳药物洗脱支架(DES)非常重要。本研究评估了依维莫司洗脱支架(EES)、佐他莫司洗脱支架(ZES)和波利莫司洗脱支架(BES)的疗效:韩国急性心肌梗死-美国国立卫生研究院登记处共登记了1,470名接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的肾功能受损的急性心肌梗死患者(816人使用EES,345人使用ZES,309人使用BES)。肾功能损害的定义是根据 Cockcroft-Gault 法估算的肌酐清除率< 60 mL/min/1.73 m²。主要心脑血管不良事件是指全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死(MI)、脑血管意外、任何血管再通、再次住院和支架血栓形成的综合结果。对所有临床结果进行了分析:除了Killip分级>2、β-受体阻滞剂、病变类型、血管途径、分期PCI、左冠状动脉主干(LMCA)复杂病变、LMCA PCI以及植入支架的数量和长度外,三组患者的基线特征无明显差异。在Kaplan-Meier分析中,三组DES未经调整的数据得出了相似的临床结果。然而,在对治疗概率进行反向加权后,发现非致死性心肌梗死方面存在显著的统计学差异,这意味着ZES组的非致死性心肌梗死发生率高于其他两组DES组:结论:对于肾功能受损的急性心肌梗死患者,除非致死性心肌梗死外,三组支架在长期临床结果方面没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes among zotarolimus-, everolimus-, and biolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction patients with renal impairment.

Background: It is important to determine the best drug-eluting stent (DES) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with renal impairment. In this studythe outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EESs), zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZESs) and biolimus-eluting stents (BESs) were evaluated.

Methods: From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health registry, a total of 1,470 AMI patients with renal impairment undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled (816 with EES, 345 with ZES, and 309 with BES). Renal impairment was defined as creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² estimated by the Cockcroft-Gault method. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were determined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular accident, any revascularization, rehospitalization and stent thrombosis. All clinical outcomes were analyzed.

Results: The baseline characteristics of the patients revealed no significant difference between the three groups, except for Killip classification > 2, beta-blockers, lesion type, vascular approach, staged PCI, left main coronary artery (LMCA) complex lesions, LMCA PCI, and the number and length of implanted stents. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, similar clinical outcomes were derived from the unadjusted data between the three DES groups. However, after the inverse probability of treatment weighting, a statistically significant difference was found in non-fatal MI, which implied a higher incidence of non-fatal MI in the ZES group than in the other two DES groups.

Conclusions: In AMI patients with renal impairment, there was no significant difference between the three stent groups in terms of long-term clinical outcomes, except for non-fatal MI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiology journal
Cardiology journal CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.30%
发文量
188
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Cardiology Journal is a scientific, peer-reviewed journal covering a broad spectrum of topics in cardiology. The journal has been published since 1994 and over the years it has become an internationally recognized journal of cardiological and medical community. Cardiology Journal is the journal for practicing cardiologists, researchers, and young trainees benefiting from broad spectrum of useful educational content.
期刊最新文献
Repeat cryoablation as a redo procedure for atrial fibrillation ablation: Is it a good choice? Prevalence and prognosis of anxiety, insomnia, and type D personality in patients with myocardial infarction: A Spanish cohort. The importance of blood pressure measurements at the emergency department in detection of arterial hypertension. Left atrial appendage filling defect in exclusive early-phase scanning of dual-phase cardiac computed tomography: An indicator for elevated thromboembolic risk. Characteristics of women with type 2 diabetes and heart failure in Spain. The DIABET-IC study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1