Loading…
Bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in large coronary arteries
Background Uncertainties exist with regard to the efficacy of drug‐eluting stent (DES) versus bare‐metal stent (BMS) in large coronary arteries. Objective and Methods The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of BMS versus DES in terms of clinical events in large coronary vessels (≥3.0 m...
Saved in:
Published in: | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2013-06, Vol.81 (7), p.1087-1094 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1819-e8a4974531b6eee055acc6292adb631a27da0fcbb761409747e5394e0f630c4b3 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 1094 |
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 1087 |
container_title | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions |
container_volume | 81 |
creator | Geng, Deng-Feng Meng, Zhe Yan, Hai-Yan Nie, Ru-Qiong Deng, Jing Wang, Jing-Feng |
description | Background
Uncertainties exist with regard to the efficacy of drug‐eluting stent (DES) versus bare‐metal stent (BMS) in large coronary arteries.
Objective and Methods
The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of BMS versus DES in terms of clinical events in large coronary vessels (≥3.0 mm) by performing a meta‐analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Results
Six RCTs with 4,399 patients were included in this study. Overall, there were no significant between‐group differences in the risks of the composite of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (cardiac death/MI), cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis, however, DES was associated with significant reduction in the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) compared with BMS [0.48 (0.33, 0.70)] with consistent benefits among patients with reference vessel diameter ≥ 3.5 mm, reference vessel diameter ≥ 4.0 mm, stent length ≤ 15 mm, first‐generation DES or second‐generation DES. In patients with ≥ 3‐year follow‐up, there were no significant between‐group differences in the risk of cardiac death/MI, TVR, cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis.
Conclusions
This meta‐analysis suggests that DES is superior to BMS in terms of adverse cardiac events in large coronary arteries at the mid‐term follow‐up. The long‐term efficacy of newer‐generation DES versus BMS in larger coronary arteries is still worth further evaluation. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ccd.24599 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1355167489</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2978867951</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1819-e8a4974531b6eee055acc6292adb631a27da0fcbb761409747e5394e0f630c4b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9UMtOwzAQtBBIlMKBP4jEOa3fjo8QoEUtcAHBzXKcbZWSJsVOgP49pq047Ug7szszCF0SPCIY07Fz5YhyofURGhBBaaqofD8-YKK5PEVnIawwxlpSPUB3N9ZDuobO1knooOmSL_ChD0np-2UKdd9VzfKwqZqktn4JiWt921i_TazvwFcQztHJwtYBLg5ziF7v717yaTp_njzk1_PUkYzoFDLLteKCkUICABbCOhdtUFsWkhFLVWnxwhWFkoTjyFQgmOaAF5Jhxws2RFf7uxvffvYQOrNqe9_El4YwIYhUPNORNd6zvqsatmbjq3U0awg2fxWZWJHZVWTy_HYHoiLdK6qY9OdfYf2HkYopYd6eJiabqOmMPM7MjP0Cwqtp5Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1355167489</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in large coronary arteries</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><creator>Geng, Deng-Feng ; Meng, Zhe ; Yan, Hai-Yan ; Nie, Ru-Qiong ; Deng, Jing ; Wang, Jing-Feng</creator><creatorcontrib>Geng, Deng-Feng ; Meng, Zhe ; Yan, Hai-Yan ; Nie, Ru-Qiong ; Deng, Jing ; Wang, Jing-Feng</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Uncertainties exist with regard to the efficacy of drug‐eluting stent (DES) versus bare‐metal stent (BMS) in large coronary arteries.
Objective and Methods
The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of BMS versus DES in terms of clinical events in large coronary vessels (≥3.0 mm) by performing a meta‐analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Results
Six RCTs with 4,399 patients were included in this study. Overall, there were no significant between‐group differences in the risks of the composite of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (cardiac death/MI), cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis, however, DES was associated with significant reduction in the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) compared with BMS [0.48 (0.33, 0.70)] with consistent benefits among patients with reference vessel diameter ≥ 3.5 mm, reference vessel diameter ≥ 4.0 mm, stent length ≤ 15 mm, first‐generation DES or second‐generation DES. In patients with ≥ 3‐year follow‐up, there were no significant between‐group differences in the risk of cardiac death/MI, TVR, cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis.
Conclusions
This meta‐analysis suggests that DES is superior to BMS in terms of adverse cardiac events in large coronary arteries at the mid‐term follow‐up. The long‐term efficacy of newer‐generation DES versus BMS in larger coronary arteries is still worth further evaluation. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1522-1946</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-726X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ccd.24599</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CARIF2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>adverse cardiac events ; bare-metal stent ; Cardiology ; drug-eluting stent ; Heart attacks ; large coronary arteries ; target vessel revascularization ; Thrombosis ; Veins & arteries</subject><ispartof>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2013-06, Vol.81 (7), p.1087-1094</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1819-e8a4974531b6eee055acc6292adb631a27da0fcbb761409747e5394e0f630c4b3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Geng, Deng-Feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meng, Zhe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan, Hai-Yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nie, Ru-Qiong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Jing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jing-Feng</creatorcontrib><title>Bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in large coronary arteries</title><title>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</title><addtitle>Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent</addtitle><description>Background
Uncertainties exist with regard to the efficacy of drug‐eluting stent (DES) versus bare‐metal stent (BMS) in large coronary arteries.
Objective and Methods
The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of BMS versus DES in terms of clinical events in large coronary vessels (≥3.0 mm) by performing a meta‐analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Results
Six RCTs with 4,399 patients were included in this study. Overall, there were no significant between‐group differences in the risks of the composite of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (cardiac death/MI), cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis, however, DES was associated with significant reduction in the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) compared with BMS [0.48 (0.33, 0.70)] with consistent benefits among patients with reference vessel diameter ≥ 3.5 mm, reference vessel diameter ≥ 4.0 mm, stent length ≤ 15 mm, first‐generation DES or second‐generation DES. In patients with ≥ 3‐year follow‐up, there were no significant between‐group differences in the risk of cardiac death/MI, TVR, cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis.
Conclusions
This meta‐analysis suggests that DES is superior to BMS in terms of adverse cardiac events in large coronary arteries at the mid‐term follow‐up. The long‐term efficacy of newer‐generation DES versus BMS in larger coronary arteries is still worth further evaluation. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</description><subject>adverse cardiac events</subject><subject>bare-metal stent</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>drug-eluting stent</subject><subject>Heart attacks</subject><subject>large coronary arteries</subject><subject>target vessel revascularization</subject><subject>Thrombosis</subject><subject>Veins & arteries</subject><issn>1522-1946</issn><issn>1522-726X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9UMtOwzAQtBBIlMKBP4jEOa3fjo8QoEUtcAHBzXKcbZWSJsVOgP49pq047Ug7szszCF0SPCIY07Fz5YhyofURGhBBaaqofD8-YKK5PEVnIawwxlpSPUB3N9ZDuobO1knooOmSL_ChD0np-2UKdd9VzfKwqZqktn4JiWt921i_TazvwFcQztHJwtYBLg5ziF7v717yaTp_njzk1_PUkYzoFDLLteKCkUICABbCOhdtUFsWkhFLVWnxwhWFkoTjyFQgmOaAF5Jhxws2RFf7uxvffvYQOrNqe9_El4YwIYhUPNORNd6zvqsatmbjq3U0awg2fxWZWJHZVWTy_HYHoiLdK6qY9OdfYf2HkYopYd6eJiabqOmMPM7MjP0Cwqtp5Q</recordid><startdate>20130601</startdate><enddate>20130601</enddate><creator>Geng, Deng-Feng</creator><creator>Meng, Zhe</creator><creator>Yan, Hai-Yan</creator><creator>Nie, Ru-Qiong</creator><creator>Deng, Jing</creator><creator>Wang, Jing-Feng</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130601</creationdate><title>Bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in large coronary arteries</title><author>Geng, Deng-Feng ; Meng, Zhe ; Yan, Hai-Yan ; Nie, Ru-Qiong ; Deng, Jing ; Wang, Jing-Feng</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1819-e8a4974531b6eee055acc6292adb631a27da0fcbb761409747e5394e0f630c4b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>adverse cardiac events</topic><topic>bare-metal stent</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>drug-eluting stent</topic><topic>Heart attacks</topic><topic>large coronary arteries</topic><topic>target vessel revascularization</topic><topic>Thrombosis</topic><topic>Veins & arteries</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Geng, Deng-Feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meng, Zhe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan, Hai-Yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nie, Ru-Qiong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Jing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jing-Feng</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Geng, Deng-Feng</au><au>Meng, Zhe</au><au>Yan, Hai-Yan</au><au>Nie, Ru-Qiong</au><au>Deng, Jing</au><au>Wang, Jing-Feng</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in large coronary arteries</atitle><jtitle>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</jtitle><addtitle>Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent</addtitle><date>2013-06-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>81</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1087</spage><epage>1094</epage><pages>1087-1094</pages><issn>1522-1946</issn><eissn>1522-726X</eissn><coden>CARIF2</coden><abstract>Background
Uncertainties exist with regard to the efficacy of drug‐eluting stent (DES) versus bare‐metal stent (BMS) in large coronary arteries.
Objective and Methods
The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of BMS versus DES in terms of clinical events in large coronary vessels (≥3.0 mm) by performing a meta‐analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Results
Six RCTs with 4,399 patients were included in this study. Overall, there were no significant between‐group differences in the risks of the composite of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (cardiac death/MI), cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis, however, DES was associated with significant reduction in the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) compared with BMS [0.48 (0.33, 0.70)] with consistent benefits among patients with reference vessel diameter ≥ 3.5 mm, reference vessel diameter ≥ 4.0 mm, stent length ≤ 15 mm, first‐generation DES or second‐generation DES. In patients with ≥ 3‐year follow‐up, there were no significant between‐group differences in the risk of cardiac death/MI, TVR, cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis.
Conclusions
This meta‐analysis suggests that DES is superior to BMS in terms of adverse cardiac events in large coronary arteries at the mid‐term follow‐up. The long‐term efficacy of newer‐generation DES versus BMS in larger coronary arteries is still worth further evaluation. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/ccd.24599</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1522-1946 |
ispartof | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2013-06, Vol.81 (7), p.1087-1094 |
issn | 1522-1946 1522-726X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1355167489 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection |
subjects | adverse cardiac events bare-metal stent Cardiology drug-eluting stent Heart attacks large coronary arteries target vessel revascularization Thrombosis Veins & arteries |
title | Bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in large coronary arteries |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T06%3A20%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bare-metal%20stent%20versus%20drug-eluting%20stent%20in%20large%20coronary%20arteries&rft.jtitle=Catheterization%20and%20cardiovascular%20interventions&rft.au=Geng,%20Deng-Feng&rft.date=2013-06-01&rft.volume=81&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1087&rft.epage=1094&rft.pages=1087-1094&rft.issn=1522-1946&rft.eissn=1522-726X&rft.coden=CARIF2&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ccd.24599&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E2978867951%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1819-e8a4974531b6eee055acc6292adb631a27da0fcbb761409747e5394e0f630c4b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1355167489&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |