Clinical results of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Everolimus-eluting stents
Percutaneous coronary intervention.
Sirolimus-eluting stents
Journal
Caspian journal of internal medicine
ISSN: 2008-6164
Titre abrégé: Caspian J Intern Med
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101523876
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
30
11
2020
revised:
01
09
2021
accepted:
04
09
2021
medline:
31
7
2023
pubmed:
31
7
2023
entrez:
31
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It has been pronounced that everolimus-eluting stent (EES) had lower charge of goal-lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis as compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).The goal of this observation was to compare the efficacy and protection of EES with SES in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). In this retrospective study, a total of 404 patients with coronary artery stenosis who underwent angioplasty of one or more coronary arteries were included in the study. Of these, 202 were treated with SES and the others with EES. The data were collected by a questionnaire through which the annual incidence of coronary stent complications including the occurrence of stent thrombosis (confirmed by re-angiography), the occurrence of acute coronary syndrome leading to hospitalization, the occurrence of vascular myocardial infarction related to the stenting vessel, the need for re-angiography and angioplasty and finally the incidence of cardiac mortality were evaluated. This study showed that the odds ratio of EES thrombosis to SES stent in the unadjusted model is 1.01 (0.06-16.34) and in the adjusted model for confounding variables was equal to 0.80 (0.04-13.35) which in both models, these values were not statistically significant. The findings of the present study indicate that there is no statistically significant difference between the outcomes in the two groups treated with SES and EES release stents.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
It has been pronounced that everolimus-eluting stent (EES) had lower charge of goal-lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis as compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).The goal of this observation was to compare the efficacy and protection of EES with SES in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
In this retrospective study, a total of 404 patients with coronary artery stenosis who underwent angioplasty of one or more coronary arteries were included in the study. Of these, 202 were treated with SES and the others with EES. The data were collected by a questionnaire through which the annual incidence of coronary stent complications including the occurrence of stent thrombosis (confirmed by re-angiography), the occurrence of acute coronary syndrome leading to hospitalization, the occurrence of vascular myocardial infarction related to the stenting vessel, the need for re-angiography and angioplasty and finally the incidence of cardiac mortality were evaluated.
Results
UNASSIGNED
This study showed that the odds ratio of EES thrombosis to SES stent in the unadjusted model is 1.01 (0.06-16.34) and in the adjusted model for confounding variables was equal to 0.80 (0.04-13.35) which in both models, these values were not statistically significant.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The findings of the present study indicate that there is no statistically significant difference between the outcomes in the two groups treated with SES and EES release stents.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
507-512Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There is no conflict of interest.
Références
Med Devices (Auckl). 2015 Jul 24;8:317-29
pubmed: 26244031
EuroIntervention. 2014;9(12):1432-40
pubmed: 24064377
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Nov;4(11):1209-15
pubmed: 22115661
Int J Vasc Med. 2020 Jul 02;2020:7624158
pubmed: 32695516
Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):667-78
pubmed: 17321312
Circulation. 2011 Jun 21;123(24):2819-28, 6 p following 2828
pubmed: 21646500
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Oct 25;58(18):1844-54
pubmed: 22018294
Lancet. 2017 Oct 21;390(10105):1843-1852
pubmed: 28851504
Lancet. 2018 Feb 3;391(10119):431-440
pubmed: 29203070
Am J Cardiol. 2012 Dec 1;110(11):1585-91
pubmed: 22959714
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Jan 23;10(2):133-143
pubmed: 28104206
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Feb 12;11(3):260-272
pubmed: 29413240
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Jun;5(6):666-74
pubmed: 22721663
Circulation. 2012 Sep 4;126(10):1225-36
pubmed: 22824435
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Jun 5;59(23):2051-7
pubmed: 22651862
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Apr;2(4):291-9
pubmed: 19463439
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 23;8:CD012481
pubmed: 28832903
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Mar 3;65(8):791-801
pubmed: 25720622
Circulation. 2014 Jan 14;129(2):211-23
pubmed: 24163064