scholarly journals 1043-47 Evidence for immediate induced percutaneous coronary intervention matrix metalloproteinase 2 variations in peripheral samples to predict target vessel revascularization after nondrug-eluting stent implantation

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. A42-A43
Author(s):  
Camille Brasselet ◽  
Sophie Pérotin ◽  
Roselyne Garnotel ◽  
Antoine Lafont ◽  
Marie Métivier ◽  
...  
Thrombosis ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashraf Alazzoni ◽  
Ayman Al-Saleh ◽  
Sanjit S. Jolly

Background. Individual randomized trials have suggested that everolimus-eluting stents may have improved clinical outcomes compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents, but individual trials are underpowered to examine outcomes such as mortality and very late stent thrombosis. Methods. Medline, Cochrane, and conference proceedings were searched for randomized trials comparing everolimus versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Results. 6792 patients were included from 4 randomized controlled trials. Stent thrombosis was reduced with everolimus stents versus paclitaxel stents (0.7% versus 2.3%; OR: 0.32; CI: 0.20–0.51; P<0.00001). The reductions in stent thrombosis were observed in (i) early stent thrombosis (within 30 days) (0.2% versus 0.9%; OR: 0.24; P=0.0005), (ii) late (day 31–365) (0.2% versus 0.6%; OR: 0.32; P=0.01), and (iii) very late stent thrombosis (>365 days) (0.2% versus 0.8%; OR: 0.34; P=0.009). The rates of cardiovascular mortality were 1.2% in everolimus group and 1.6% in paclitaxel group (OR: 0.85; P=0.43). Patients receiving everolimus-eluting stents had significantly lower myocardial infarction events and target vessel revascularization as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents. Interpretation. Everolimus compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents reduced the incidence of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis as well as target vessel revascularization.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Yan Li ◽  
Xiying Liang ◽  
Wenjiao Zhang ◽  
Xuan Qiao ◽  
Zhilu Wang

Objective. The effect of postdilation in patients with acute coronary syndrome is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the clinical and angiographic outcomes of postdilation after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Methods. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wangfang databases were searched from inception to August 30, 2020. Eligible studies from acute coronary syndrome patients treated with postdilation were included. The primary clinical outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), the secondary clinical outcomes comprised all-cause death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, and the angiographic outcomes were no reflow and slow reflow. Results. 11 studies met inclusion criteria. In clinical outcomes, our pooled analysis demonstrated that the postdilation had a tendency of decreasing MACE (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45–1.00; P  = 0.05) but significantly increased all-cause death (OR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.05–2.12; P  = 0.03). No significant difference existed in stent thrombosis (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.40–1.26; P  = 0.24), myocardial infarction (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.51–3.83; P  = 0.51), and target vessel revascularization (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.21–1.80; P  = 0.37) between postdilation and non-postdilation groups. In angiographic outcomes, there were no significant differences in no reflow (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.54–2.65; P  = 0.66) and slow reflow (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.93–1.35; P  = 0.24) between two groups. Conclusions. The postdilation tends to reduce the risk of MACE but significantly increases all-cause death, without significantly affecting stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and coronary TIMI flow grade. However, more randomized controlled trials are required for investigating the effect of postdilation for patients with acute coronary syndrome (registered by PROSPERO, CRD42020160748).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document