Outcome of PCI with Xience versus other commonly used modern drug eluting stents: A SCAAR report.
PCI
drug eluting stent
restenosis
stent thrombosis
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2021
01 08 2021
Historique:
received:
28
11
2020
accepted:
25
02
2021
pubmed:
16
3
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
15
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To analyze the clinical outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using the Xience drug eluting stent (DES) versus other modern DES. This retrospective study based on the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) analyzed the outcome of PCI using Xience versus other commonly used modern DES, 2007 to 2017. The primary outcome measure was a combination of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and revascularisation with PCI. Angiographical outcome measures were in-stent restenosis (ISR) and stent thrombosis (ST). Rates of the primary outcome measure for Xience and other DES were 31.9% and 28.2% respectively, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.99 (95% CI 0.95-1.03). Crude rates of ISR were 2.9% versus 2.1% over 4.3 and 2.9 years respectively, adjusted HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.81-1.06). Crude rates of ST were 0.9% versus 0.7%, adjusted HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.82-1.39). Results were consistent in all sensitivity analyses. This nationally complete, real-world study confirms that Xience is a safe and effective DES with low-event rates of ISR and ST. Compared with a control group containing a large proportion of thinner strut stents and absorbable polymers, Xience exhibits similar results in all important clinical endpoints.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E197-E204Subventions
Organisme : Abbott Laboratories
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:87-165.
Stefanini G, Byrne R, Windecker S, Kastrati A. State of the art: coronary artery stents - past, present and future. EuroIntervention. 2017;13:706-716.
Bønaa KH, Mannsverk J, Wiseth R, et al. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1242-1252.
Sarno G, Lagerqvist B, Fröbert O, et al. Lower risk of stent thrombosis and restenosis with unrestricted use of ‘new-generation’ drug-eluting stents: a report from the nationwide Swedish coronary angiography and angioplasty registry (SCAAR). Eur Heart J. 2012;33:606-613.
Uppsala Clinical Research Center. SWEDEHEART Annual Report 2018. Uppsala: 2018.
Valgimigli M, Sabate M, Kaiser C, et al. Effects of cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents or bare metal stent on fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events: patient level meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g6427.
Bangalore S, Amoroso N, Fusaro M, Kumar S, Feit F. Outcomes with various drug-eluting or bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:378-390.
Iqbal J, Serruys PW, Silber S, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002230.
Jernberg T, Attebring MF, Hambraeus K, et al. The Swedish web-system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies (SWEDEHEART). Heart. 2010;96:1617-1621.
Garcia-Garcia HM, McFadden EP, Farb A, et al. Academic research consortium. Standardized end point definitions for coronary intervention trials: the academic research Consortium-2 consensus document. Circulation. 2018;137:2635-2650.
Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Sotomi Y, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial. Lancet. 2016;388:2479-2491.
Stone GW, Gao R, Kimura T, et al. 1-year outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. Lancet (London, England). 2016;387:1277-1289.
Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Metzger DC, et al. Clinical outcomes prior to and following complete everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold resorption: five-year follow-up from the ABSORB III trial. Circulation. 2019;140:1895-1903.
Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2223-2235.
Rizas KD, Mehilli J. Stent polymers: do they make a difference? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:1-13.
Meredith IT, Verheye S, Dubois C, et al. Final five-year clinical outcomes in the EVOLVE trial: a randomised evaluation of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting stent. EuroIntervention. 2018;13:2047-2050.
Bangalore S, Toklu B, Amoroso N, et al. Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;347:f6625.
El-Hayek G, Bangalore S, Casso Dominguez A, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent to second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:462-473.
Buccheri S, James S, Lindholm D, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of bioabsorbable vs. permanent polymer drug-eluting stents in Sweden: a report from the Swedish coronary and angioplasty registry (SCAAR). Eur Heart J. 2019;40:2607-2615.
Kandzari DE, Mauri L, Koolen JJ, et al. Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation (BIOFLOW V): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2017;390:1843-1852.
Iglesias JF, Muller O, Heg D, et al. Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (BIOSTEMI): a single-blind, prospective, randomised superiority trial. Lancet. 2019;394:1243-1253.
Pilgrim T, Piccolo R, Heg D, et al. Ultrathin-strut, biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin-strut, durable-polymer, everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularisation: 5-year outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE randomised trial. Lancet. 2018;392:737-746.