期刊文献+

关于西罗莫司和紫杉醇洗脱支架用于新发冠状动脉病变的随机对照试验:REALITY试验 被引量:12

Sirolimus-vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions-The REALITY trial:A randomized controlled trial
暂未订购
导出
摘要 Context: Compared with bare metal stents, sirolimus-elut-ing and paclitaxel-eluting stents have been shown to markedly improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary revascularization, but their performance in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions has not been compared in a prospective multicenter study. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. Design: Prospective, randomized comparative trial(the REALITY trial) conducted between August 2003 and February 2004, with angiographic follow-up at 8 months and clinical follow-up at 12 months. Setting: Ninety hospitals in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Patients: A total of 1386 patients(mean age, 62.6 years; 73.1% men; 28.0% with diabetes)with angina pectoris and 1 or 2 de novo lesions(2.25-3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteries. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 ∶ 1 ratio to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent(n=701) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent(n=685). Main Outcome Measures: The primary end point was in-lesion binary restenosis(presence of a more than 50% luminal diameter stenosis) at 8 months. Secondary end points included 1-year rates of target lesion and vessel revascularization and a composite end point of cardiac death, Q-wave or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or repeat target lesion revascularization. Results: In-lesion binary restenosis at 8 months occurred in 86 patients(9.6% ) with a sirolimus-eluting stent vs 95(11.1% ) with a paclitaxel-eluting stent(relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.17; P=.31). For sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents, respectively, the mean(SD) in-stent late loss was 0.09(0.43) mm vs 0.31(0.44) mm(difference,-0.22 mm; 95% CI,-0.26 to-0.18 mm; P<.001), mean(SD) in-stent diameter stenosis was 23.1% (16.6% ) vs 26.7% (15.8% )(difference,-3.60% ; 95% CI,-5.12% to-2.08% ; P< .001), and the number of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year was 73(10.7% ) vs 76(11.4% )(RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; P=.73). Conclusion: In this trial comparing sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents, there were no differences in the rates of binary restenosis or major adverse cardiac events. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: Context: Compared with bare metal stents, sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents have been shown to markedly improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary revascularization, but their performance in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions has not been compared in a prospective muhicenter study. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. Design: Prospective, randomized comparative trial(the REALITY trial) conducted between August 2003 and February 2004, with angiographic follow-up at 8 months and clinical follow-up at 12 months. Setting: Ninety hospitals in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Patients: A total of 1386 patients (mean age, 62. 6 years; .73.1% men; 28.0% with diabetes) with angina pectoris and 1 or 2 de novo lesions (2.25 - 3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteries. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent(n = 701) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent(n = 685) . Main Outcome Measures:
  • 相关文献

同被引文献113

  • 1宋玮,金叔宣,杜勇平,刘建平,何奔,王彬尧.CT血管造影在评价冠状动脉支架术后支架内再狭窄中的价值[J].上海交通大学学报(医学版),2006,26(10):1172-1175. 被引量:5
  • 2Daemen J,Serruys PW. Drug-eluting stent update 2007:part I. A survey of current and future generation drug-eluting stents: meaningful advances or more of the same? [J].Circulation, 2007,116(3):316-328.
  • 3Kastrati A, Dibra A, Mehilli J, et at. Predictive factors of restenosis after coronary implantation of sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents[J]. Circulation, 2006,113 (19) : 2293- 2300.
  • 4Ardissino D, Cavallini C, Bramucci E, et al. Sirolimus-eluting vs uncoated stents for prevention of restenosis in small coronary arteries:a randomized trial[J]. JAMA, 2004, 292 (22) : 2727- 2734.
  • 5Mehilli J, Dibra A, Kastrati A, et al. Randomized trial of paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents in small coronary vessels[J]. Eur Heart J,2006,27 (3) :260-266.
  • 6Akiyama T, Moussa I, Reimers B, et al. Angiographic and clinical outcome following coronary stenting of small vessels:a comparison with coronary stenting of large vessels[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 1998,32(6) : 1610-1618.
  • 7de Luca G, Suryapranata H, van 't Hof AW, et al. Comparison between stenting and balloon angioplasty in patients undergoing primary angioplasty of small coronary vessels[J]. Am Heart J,2006,152(5) :915-920.
  • 8Colombo A, Chieffo A. Drug-eluting stent update 2007: part III: Technique and unapproved/unsettled indications (left main,bifurcations, chronic total occlusions, small vessels and long lesions, saphenous vein grafts, acute myocardial infarctions,and multivessel disease) [J]. Circulation, 2007,116 (12) : 1424-1432.
  • 9Mikhail GW. Coronary revascularisation in women[J].Heart, 2006,92(suppl 3):19-23.
  • 10Pilote I.,Dasgupta K, Guru V,et al.A comprehensive view of sex-specific issues related to cardiovascualr disease[J].CMAJ, 2007,176(6):S1-44.

引证文献12

二级引证文献22

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部