{"title":"Novolimus洗脱支架与Sirolimus洗脱支架的真实世界临床表现。","authors":"Chun-Chin Chang, Wei-Ting Sung, Ya-Wen Lu, Ming-Ju Chuang, Yin-Hao Lee, Yi-Lin Tsai, Ruey-Hsing Chou, Shao-Sung Huang, Po-Hsun Huang","doi":"10.1002/clc.24317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The DESyne novolimus-eluting coronary stent (NES) is a new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) that is widely used, but clinical data are rarely reported for this stent. We compared the safety and effectiveness of the DESyne NES and the Orsiro bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study. Between July 2017 and December 2022, patients who presented with chronic or acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI with DESyne NES or Orsiro SES were consecutively enrolled in the present study. The primary endpoint, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), was a composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 776 patients (age 68.8 ± 12.2; 75.9% male) undergoing PCI were included. Overall, 231 patients with 313 lesions received NES and 545 patients with 846 lesions received SES. During a follow-up duration of 784 ± 522 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 10 patients (4.3%) in the NES group and in 36 patients (6.6%) in the SES group. After multivariate adjustment, the risk of MACE did not significantly differ between groups (NES vs. SES, hazard ratio 0.74, 95% CI, 0.35–1.55, <i>p</i> = 0.425). The event rate of individual components of the primary endpoint was comparable between the two groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Favorable and similar clinical outcomes were observed in patients undergoing PCI with either NES or SES in a medium-term follow-up duration. Future studies with adequately powered clinical endpoints are required for further evaluation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10201,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Cardiology","volume":"47 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11217985/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-World Clinical Performance of a Novolimus-Eluting Stent Versus a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent\",\"authors\":\"Chun-Chin Chang, Wei-Ting Sung, Ya-Wen Lu, Ming-Ju Chuang, Yin-Hao Lee, Yi-Lin Tsai, Ruey-Hsing Chou, Shao-Sung Huang, Po-Hsun Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/clc.24317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>The DESyne novolimus-eluting coronary stent (NES) is a new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) that is widely used, but clinical data are rarely reported for this stent. We compared the safety and effectiveness of the DESyne NES and the Orsiro bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study. Between July 2017 and December 2022, patients who presented with chronic or acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI with DESyne NES or Orsiro SES were consecutively enrolled in the present study. The primary endpoint, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), was a composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 776 patients (age 68.8 ± 12.2; 75.9% male) undergoing PCI were included. Overall, 231 patients with 313 lesions received NES and 545 patients with 846 lesions received SES. During a follow-up duration of 784 ± 522 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 10 patients (4.3%) in the NES group and in 36 patients (6.6%) in the SES group. After multivariate adjustment, the risk of MACE did not significantly differ between groups (NES vs. SES, hazard ratio 0.74, 95% CI, 0.35–1.55, <i>p</i> = 0.425). The event rate of individual components of the primary endpoint was comparable between the two groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Favorable and similar clinical outcomes were observed in patients undergoing PCI with either NES or SES in a medium-term follow-up duration. Future studies with adequately powered clinical endpoints are required for further evaluation.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Cardiology\",\"volume\":\"47 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11217985/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.24317\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.24317","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Real-World Clinical Performance of a Novolimus-Eluting Stent Versus a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent
Introduction
The DESyne novolimus-eluting coronary stent (NES) is a new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) that is widely used, but clinical data are rarely reported for this stent. We compared the safety and effectiveness of the DESyne NES and the Orsiro bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Methods
This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study. Between July 2017 and December 2022, patients who presented with chronic or acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI with DESyne NES or Orsiro SES were consecutively enrolled in the present study. The primary endpoint, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), was a composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.
Results
A total of 776 patients (age 68.8 ± 12.2; 75.9% male) undergoing PCI were included. Overall, 231 patients with 313 lesions received NES and 545 patients with 846 lesions received SES. During a follow-up duration of 784 ± 522 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 10 patients (4.3%) in the NES group and in 36 patients (6.6%) in the SES group. After multivariate adjustment, the risk of MACE did not significantly differ between groups (NES vs. SES, hazard ratio 0.74, 95% CI, 0.35–1.55, p = 0.425). The event rate of individual components of the primary endpoint was comparable between the two groups.
Conclusions
Favorable and similar clinical outcomes were observed in patients undergoing PCI with either NES or SES in a medium-term follow-up duration. Future studies with adequately powered clinical endpoints are required for further evaluation.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Cardiology provides a fully Gold Open Access forum for the publication of original clinical research, as well as brief reviews of diagnostic and therapeutic issues in cardiovascular medicine and cardiovascular surgery.
The journal includes Clinical Investigations, Reviews, free standing editorials and commentaries, and bonus online-only content.
The journal also publishes supplements, Expert Panel Discussions, sponsored clinical Reviews, Trial Designs, and Quality and Outcomes.