• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Stent Selection for Primary Angioplasty and Outcomes in the Era of Potent Antiplatelets. Data from the Multicenter Randomized Prague-18 Trial

O. Hlinomaz, Z. Motovska, J. Knot, R. Miklik, M. Sabbah, M. Hromadka, I. Varvarovsky, J. Dusek, M. Svoboda, F. Tousek, B. Majtan, S. Simek, M. Branny, J. Jarkovský

. 2021 ; 10 (21) : . [pub] 20211030

Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22001415

Grantová podpora
Progress Q 38 Charles University

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the recommended stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to determine why interventional cardiologists used non-DES and how it influenced patient prognoses. The efficacy and safety outcomes of the different stents were also compared in patients treated with either prasugrel or ticagrelor. Of the PRAGUE-18 study patients, 749 (67.4%) were treated with DES, 296 (26.6%) with bare-metal stents (BMS), and 66 (5.9%) with bioabsorbable vascular scaffold/stents (BVS) between 2013 and 2016. Cardiogenic shock at presentation, left main coronary artery disease, especially as the culprit lesion, and right coronary artery stenosis were the reasons for selecting a BMS. The incidence of the primary composite net-clinical endpoint (EP) (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, serious bleeding, or revascularization) at seven days was 2.5% vs. 6.3% and 3.0% in the DES, vs. with BMS and BVS, respectively (HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.419-5.15, p = 0.002 for BMS vs. DES and 1.25 (0.29-5.39) p = 0.76 for BVS vs. DES). Patients with BMS were at higher risk of death at 30 days (HR 2.20; 95% CI 1.01-4.76; for BMS vs. DES, p = 0.045) and at one year (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.19-3.69; p = 0.01); they also had a higher composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, and stroke (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.0-2.74; p = 0.047) at one year. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of primary EP whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. In conclusion, patients with the highest initial risk profile were preferably treated with BMS over BVS. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22001415
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220112153602.0
007      
ta
008      
220107s2021 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.3390/jcm10215103 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34768623
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Hlinomaz, Ota $u ICRC, Department of Cardioangiology, St. Anne University Hospital, Masaryk University, 65691 Brno, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Stent Selection for Primary Angioplasty and Outcomes in the Era of Potent Antiplatelets. Data from the Multicenter Randomized Prague-18 Trial / $c O. Hlinomaz, Z. Motovska, J. Knot, R. Miklik, M. Sabbah, M. Hromadka, I. Varvarovsky, J. Dusek, M. Svoboda, F. Tousek, B. Majtan, S. Simek, M. Branny, J. Jarkovský
520    9_
$a Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the recommended stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to determine why interventional cardiologists used non-DES and how it influenced patient prognoses. The efficacy and safety outcomes of the different stents were also compared in patients treated with either prasugrel or ticagrelor. Of the PRAGUE-18 study patients, 749 (67.4%) were treated with DES, 296 (26.6%) with bare-metal stents (BMS), and 66 (5.9%) with bioabsorbable vascular scaffold/stents (BVS) between 2013 and 2016. Cardiogenic shock at presentation, left main coronary artery disease, especially as the culprit lesion, and right coronary artery stenosis were the reasons for selecting a BMS. The incidence of the primary composite net-clinical endpoint (EP) (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, serious bleeding, or revascularization) at seven days was 2.5% vs. 6.3% and 3.0% in the DES, vs. with BMS and BVS, respectively (HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.419-5.15, p = 0.002 for BMS vs. DES and 1.25 (0.29-5.39) p = 0.76 for BVS vs. DES). Patients with BMS were at higher risk of death at 30 days (HR 2.20; 95% CI 1.01-4.76; for BMS vs. DES, p = 0.045) and at one year (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.19-3.69; p = 0.01); they also had a higher composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, and stroke (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.0-2.74; p = 0.047) at one year. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of primary EP whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. In conclusion, patients with the highest initial risk profile were preferably treated with BMS over BVS. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Motovska, Zuzana $u Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Cardiocentre, 10034 Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Knot, Jiri $u Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Cardiocentre, 10034 Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Miklik, Roman $u Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine of Masaryk University and University Hospital, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Sabbah, Mahmoud $u ICRC, Department of Cardioangiology, St. Anne University Hospital, Masaryk University, 65691 Brno, Czech Republic $u Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia P.O. Box 41522, Egypt
700    1_
$a Hromadka, Milan $u Department of Cardiology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, 30599 Pilsen, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Varvarovsky, Ivo $u Cardiology Centre AGEL, 53203 Pardubice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Dusek, Jaroslav $u First Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Hradec Kralove, 50005 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Svoboda, Michal $u Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Tousek, Frantisek $u Cardiocentre-Department of Cardiology, Regional Hospital, 37001 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Majtan, Bohumil $u Cardiocentre, Regional Hospital, 36001 Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Simek, Stanislav $u Department of Physiology and Second Department of Medicine-Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, 12808 Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Branny, Marian $u Cardiovascular Center, Hospital Podlesi, AGEL Research and Training Institute, 73961 Trinec, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jarkovský, Jiří $u Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00195462 $t Journal of clinical medicine $x 2077-0383 $g Roč. 10, č. 21 (2021)
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34768623 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20220107 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220112153558 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ind $b bmc $g 1745469 $s 1152562
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 10 $c 21 $e 20211030 $i 2077-0383 $m Journal of clinical medicine $n J Clin Med $x MED00195462
GRA    __
$a Progress Q 38 $p Charles University
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220107

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace