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

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00159816%3A_____%2F21%3A00075063" target="_blank" >RIV/00159816:_____/21:00075063 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00669806:_____/21:10434093 RIV/00216208:11120/21:43922492 RIV/00216208:11140/21:10434093 RIV/00216208:11110/21:10434093 a 4 dalších

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/5103/htm" target="_blank" >https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/5103/htm</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10215103" target="_blank" >10.3390/jcm10215103</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.&lt;/p&gt;

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.&lt;/p&gt;

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Clinical Medicine

ISSN

2077-0383

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

10

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

21

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

12

Strana od-do

5103

Kód UT WoS článku

000718744300001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85118214055