• Yuan-Liang Ma, Xiao-Fang Tang, Yi Yao, Na Xu, Ying Song, Ping Jiang, Jing-Jing Xu, Huan-Huan Wang, Lin Jiang, Ru Liu, Xue-Yan Zhao, Jue Chen, Zhan Gao, Shu-Bin Qiao, Yue-Jin Yang, Run-Lin Gao, Bo Xu, and Jin-Qing Yuan.
• Department of Cardiology, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100037, China.
• Chin. Med. J. 2018 Jun 20; 131 (12): 1397-1405.

BackgroundIt remains undetermined whether second-generation drug-eluting stents (G2-DESs) outperform first-generation DESs (G1-DESs) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of G1-DES and G2-DES in ACS patients in a high-volume cardiovascular center.MethodsIn 2013, 10,724 consecutive patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in our institution. We included 4037 patients with ACS who underwent exclusively G1-DES or G2-DES implantation (n = 364 and n = 3673, respectively). We used propensity score matching to minimize the imbalance between the G1-DES and G2-DES groups and followed patients for 2 years. The efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and its components including target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TV-MI), target vessel revascularization/target lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and cardiac death. The safety endpoint was stent thrombosis. Continuous variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U-test, and categorical variables were compared using Pearson's Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to compare the event-free survival rates, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess whether stent type was an independent risk factor for the efficacy and safety endpoints.ResultsAt the 2-year follow-up, the results for MACE and it components, as well as stent thrombosis, were similar for G1-DES and G2-DES (MACE, 5.2% vs. 4.3%, χ2 = 0.514, P = 0.474; TV-MI, 0.8% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.407; TVR, 4.9% vs. 3.7%, χ2 = 0.939, P = 0.333; TLR, 3.8% vs. 2.5%, χ2 = 1.610, P = 0.205; cardiac death, 0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.670; and stent thrombosis, 0.5% vs. 0.4%, P > 0.999). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated similar event-free survival rates between G1-DES and G2-DES after propensity score matching (all: log-rank P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that stent type was not an independent risk factor for the efficacy and safety endpoints (MACE, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.805, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.455-1.424, P = 0.456; TV-MI, HR = 0.500, 95% CI: 0.101-2.475, P = 0.395; TVR, HR = 0.732, 95% CI: 0.403-1.330, P = 0.306; TLR, HR = 0.629, 95% CI: 0.313-1.264, P = 0.193; cardiac death, HR = 1.991, 95% CI: 0.223-17.814, P = 0.538; and stent thrombosis, HR = 0.746, 95% CI: 0.125-4.467, P = 0.749).ConclusionG1-DES and G2-DES have similar efficacy and safety profiles in ACS patients at the 2-year follow-up.

18 keywords...

hide…