Key result
R-ZES stenting in extra-small vs small vessels shows no significant difference in 3-year MACE.
Observational (n=2,141)
Yes
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIMS: We assessed long-term outcomes in patients with extra-small (XS) (≤2.25 mm) and small vessels (SV) (>2.25-2.75 mm) treated with the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from eight studies including patients with XS or SV were pooled for this analysis. Among 2,141 patients (837 XS, 1,304 SV), three-year cumulative major adverse cardiac events (15.4% vs. 11.5%; adj. HR [95% CI]: 1.3 [1.0, 1.7], p=0.12), target lesion failure (12.4% vs. 9.3%, adj. HR: 1.1 [0.8, 1.5], p=0.56), and target lesion revascularisation (TLR: 6.9% vs. 4.5%, adj. HR 1.4 [0.9, 2.1], p=0.17) were greater in the XS cohort but were not significantly different after propensity adjustment. Target vessel revascularisation occurred more frequently in XS patients in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses (11.2% vs. 7.6%, adj. HR: 1.5 [1.1, 2.1], p=0.02). Stent thrombosis was low in both cohorts (1.2% vs. 0.6%, p=0.09). In the XS cohort, insulin-dependent diabetics had over twofold higher rates of TLR than non-diabetics (13.6% vs. 6.0%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term lesion-specific results among patients with XS vessels treated with the R-ZES were not significantly different from those among patients with SV, but specific patients with XS vessels (e.g., insulin-dependent diabetics) may remain at high risk for TLR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parikh et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease in extra-small (≤2.25 mm) and small (>2.25-2.75 mm) vessels (n=2,141). Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) in extra-small vessels (≤2.25 mm) vs. Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) in small vessels (>2.25-2.75 mm) was evaluated on Three-year cumulative major adverse cardiac events (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.7, p=0.12). Stenting extra-small vs small vessels with R-ZES showed no significant difference in 3-year MACE (15.4% vs 11.5%; adj HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.7, p=0.12) or TLF (12.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.56).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: