Polymer-free drug-eluting stents versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stents: An updated meta-analysis.

Yun-Lin Chen, Jinqi Fan, Guozhu Chen, Li Cao, Li Lu, Yanping Xu, Yuehui Yin
{"title":"Polymer-free drug-eluting stents versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stents: An updated meta-analysis.","authors":"Yun-Lin Chen,&nbsp;Jinqi Fan,&nbsp;Guozhu Chen,&nbsp;Li Cao,&nbsp;Li Lu,&nbsp;Yanping Xu,&nbsp;Yuehui Yin","doi":"10.1097/MD.0000000000015217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Polymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) have been demonstrated comparable to permanent polymer drug-eluting stents (PP-DES) during long-term follow-up. As a critical component of drug-eluting stents, antiproliferative drugs may be a confounding factor for the results. Thus, we sought to compare the outcomes of these stents during long-term follow-up, especially in consideration of different stent platforms with the same drugs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systemic search was performed to identify the related randomized controlled trials comparing PF-DES with PP-DES. Primary outcomes included short (≤1 year) and long-term (>1 year) target lesion revascularization (TLR), short-term in-stent late luminal loss (LLL) and diameter stenosis (DS). Subgroup analyses stratified by the different platforms with the same proliferative drugs were conducted in TLR, LLL, and DS. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using fixed /random effects models RESULTS:: A total of 6927 patients extracted from 12 RCTs were enrolled in the meta-analysis. No differences were observed in clinical outcomes of short-term and long-term overall mortality, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis and angiographic outcomes of short-term in-stent LLL and DS between PF-DES and PP-DES for patients with coronary artery lesions. Nevertheless, compared with PP-DES coated with the same proliferative drugs, PF-DES had significantly increased risks of in-stent LLL (SMD, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.72) and DS (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.27-1.07), and long-term TLR (RR, 1.64; 95% CI 1.13-2.39). There were no significant differences in other outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Under the condition of using same antiproliferative drugs (paclitaxel or sirolimus) in different stent systems, PF-DES are associated with the increased risk of restenosis compared to PP-DES.</p>","PeriodicalId":508590,"journal":{"name":"Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e15217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/MD.0000000000015217","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Polymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) have been demonstrated comparable to permanent polymer drug-eluting stents (PP-DES) during long-term follow-up. As a critical component of drug-eluting stents, antiproliferative drugs may be a confounding factor for the results. Thus, we sought to compare the outcomes of these stents during long-term follow-up, especially in consideration of different stent platforms with the same drugs.

Methods: A systemic search was performed to identify the related randomized controlled trials comparing PF-DES with PP-DES. Primary outcomes included short (≤1 year) and long-term (>1 year) target lesion revascularization (TLR), short-term in-stent late luminal loss (LLL) and diameter stenosis (DS). Subgroup analyses stratified by the different platforms with the same proliferative drugs were conducted in TLR, LLL, and DS. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using fixed /random effects models RESULTS:: A total of 6927 patients extracted from 12 RCTs were enrolled in the meta-analysis. No differences were observed in clinical outcomes of short-term and long-term overall mortality, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis and angiographic outcomes of short-term in-stent LLL and DS between PF-DES and PP-DES for patients with coronary artery lesions. Nevertheless, compared with PP-DES coated with the same proliferative drugs, PF-DES had significantly increased risks of in-stent LLL (SMD, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.72) and DS (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.27-1.07), and long-term TLR (RR, 1.64; 95% CI 1.13-2.39). There were no significant differences in other outcomes.

Conclusions: Under the condition of using same antiproliferative drugs (paclitaxel or sirolimus) in different stent systems, PF-DES are associated with the increased risk of restenosis compared to PP-DES.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

无聚合物药物洗脱支架与永久性聚合物药物洗脱支架:一项最新的荟萃分析。
背景:在长期随访中,无聚合物药物洗脱支架(PF-DES)已被证明与永久性聚合物药物洗脱支架(PP-DES)相当。作为药物洗脱支架的重要组成部分,抗增殖药物可能是影响结果的一个混杂因素。因此,我们试图在长期随访中比较这些支架的结果,特别是考虑到使用相同药物的不同支架平台。方法:系统检索比较PF-DES和PP-DES的相关随机对照试验。主要结局包括短期(≤1年)和长期(>1年)靶病变血运重建术(TLR)、短期支架内晚期管腔损失(LLL)和管径狭窄(DS)。对TLR、LLL和DS进行亚组分析,以不同平台和相同的增生性药物进行分层。采用固定/随机效应模型估计标准化平均差异(SMDs)和风险比(rr)。结果:从12项随机对照试验中提取的6927例患者纳入meta分析。对于冠状动脉病变患者,PF-DES和PP-DES在短期和长期总死亡率、心肌梗死和支架血栓形成的临床结局以及短期支架内LLL和DS的血管造影结果方面均无差异。然而,与包被相同增增殖药物的PP-DES相比,PF-DES显著增加了支架内LLL的风险(SMD, 0.49;95%置信区间[CI], 0.25-0.72)和DS (SMD, 0.67;95% CI, 0.27-1.07)和长期TLR (RR, 1.64;95% ci 1.13-2.39)。其他结果没有显著差异。结论:在不同支架系统使用相同抗增殖药物(紫杉醇或西罗莫司)的情况下,与PP-DES相比,PF-DES的再狭窄风险增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信