Clinical Research

HOME > R&D Achievement > Clinical Research > Article
 
DATE : 21-06-10 12:18
Two‑year clinical outcomes of zotarolimus‑ and everolimus‑eluting durable‑polymer‑coated stents versus biolimus‑eluting biodegradable‑polymer‑coated stent in patients with acute myocardial infarction with dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary inter
 WRITER : stent
HIT : 2,508  
   C217.+Two-year+clinical+outcomes+of+zotarolimus-+and+everolimus-eluting+dur~.pdf (1.2M) [0] DATE : 2021-06-10 12:18:26
Yong Hoon Kim, Ae-Young He, Myung Ho Jeong,Byeong‑Keuk Kim,Sung‑Jin Hong,Dong‑Ho Shin, Jung‑Sun Kim, Young‑Guk Ko,Donghoon Choi, Myeong‑Ki Hong, Yangsoo Jang

Two‑year clinical outcomes of zotarolimus‑ and everolimus‑eluting durable‑polymer‑coated stents versus biolimus‑eluting biodegradable‑polymer‑coated stent in patients with acute myocardial infarction with dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary inter

HEART AND VESSELS

There are limited data comparing the clinical outcomes among new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We thought to investigate 2-year clinical outcomes among durable-polymer (DP)-coated stents [zotarolimus eluting (ZES) and everolimus eluting (EES)] and biodegradable-polymer (BP)-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in dyslipidemic AMI patients after PCI. Finally, a total 2403 enrolled patients were divided into ZES (n = 953), EES (n = 1145) or BES (n = 305) group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as total death (TD), cardiac death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and non-TVR. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST). The 2-year adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of MACE for ZES vs. EES [HR, 1.066; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.752-1.511; p = 0.720], ZES vs. BES (HR 0.933; 95% CI 0.565-1.541; p = 0.786), EES vs. BES (HR 1.876; 95% CI 0.535-1.436; p = 0.600) and ZES/EES vs. BES (HR 0.929; 95% CI 0.591-1.462; p = 0.751) was similar. The cumulative incidences of ST were comparable (ZES vs. EES vs. BES = 1.1% vs. 0.9% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.675) and adjusted HR was not different. In addition, the 2-year adjusted HR of TD, CD, MI, TLR, TVR, and non-TVR was similar. The AMI patients with dyslipidemia receiving ZES, EES, or BES after PCI showed comparable safety and efficacy during 2-year follow-up periods. Therefore, DP-DES or BP-DES is equally acceptable in dyslipidemic AMI patients during PCI.

 Keywords: Drug-eluting stents; Dyslipidemia; Myocardial infarction.