TY - JOUR
T1 - Real-World Three-Year Clinical Outcomes of Biolimus-Eluting Stents versus Other Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients
T2 - Data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR)
AU - Park, Ji Young
AU - Rha, Seung Woon
AU - Noh, Yung Kyun
AU - Choi, Byoung Geol
AU - Hong, Ji Yeon
AU - Choi, Jae Woong
AU - Ryu, Sung Kee
AU - Park, Sung Hun
AU - Kim, Yong Hoon
AU - Jeong, Myung Ho
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was done with the support of the Korean Circulation Society (KCS) to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of KCS on behalf of KAMIR-NIH registry investigators. 0is work was partly supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (grant no. NRF/MSIT2017R1E1A1A03070945) and by the Institute of Information and Communications Technology Planning and Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (no. 2020-0-01373, Artificial Intelligence Graduate School Program (Hanyang University)).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Ji Young Park et al.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Introduction. Biolimus-eluting stents (BES) are known to be superior to bare-metal stents. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BES compared to other drug-eluting stents (DES) based on big data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR). Methods. The study analyzed a total of 9,759 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES. Total death, cardiac death, recurrent MI, revascularization, stent thrombosis, target lesion failure (TLF, composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, composite of total death, recurrent MI, and revascularization) were analyzed in patients with AMI up to three years. Study populations were divided into BES (n = 2,020), everolimus-eluting stents (EES, n = 5,293), and zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES, n = 2,446) groups. Results. To adjust baseline potential confounders, an inverse probability weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed. After IPTW, at three years, total death (7.2%, 8.6%, and 9.5%, P<0.001), cardiac death (4.1%, 5.3%, and 6.6%, P<0.001), recurrent MI (1.6%, 2.6%, and 3.2%, P<0.001), TLF (6.5%, 8.1%, and 9.1%, P<0.001), and MACE (15.8%, 17.5%, and 18.2%, P<0.001) were lowest in the BES group compared with the other DES groups in AMI patients. During the 3-year clinical follow-up, the BES group showed better outcomes of MACE (hazard ratio (HR), 0.773; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.676-0.884; P<0.001), TLF (HR, 0.659; 95% CI, 0.538-0.808; P<0.001), total death (HR, 0.687; 95% CI, 0.566-0.835; P<0.001), and cardiac death (HR,0.593; 95% CI, 0.462-0.541; P<0.001) than the EES groups. Conclusions. In this study, BES was superior to EES or ZES in reducing total death, cardiac death, TLF, and MACE in AMI patients.
AB - Introduction. Biolimus-eluting stents (BES) are known to be superior to bare-metal stents. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BES compared to other drug-eluting stents (DES) based on big data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR). Methods. The study analyzed a total of 9,759 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES. Total death, cardiac death, recurrent MI, revascularization, stent thrombosis, target lesion failure (TLF, composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, composite of total death, recurrent MI, and revascularization) were analyzed in patients with AMI up to three years. Study populations were divided into BES (n = 2,020), everolimus-eluting stents (EES, n = 5,293), and zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES, n = 2,446) groups. Results. To adjust baseline potential confounders, an inverse probability weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed. After IPTW, at three years, total death (7.2%, 8.6%, and 9.5%, P<0.001), cardiac death (4.1%, 5.3%, and 6.6%, P<0.001), recurrent MI (1.6%, 2.6%, and 3.2%, P<0.001), TLF (6.5%, 8.1%, and 9.1%, P<0.001), and MACE (15.8%, 17.5%, and 18.2%, P<0.001) were lowest in the BES group compared with the other DES groups in AMI patients. During the 3-year clinical follow-up, the BES group showed better outcomes of MACE (hazard ratio (HR), 0.773; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.676-0.884; P<0.001), TLF (HR, 0.659; 95% CI, 0.538-0.808; P<0.001), total death (HR, 0.687; 95% CI, 0.566-0.835; P<0.001), and cardiac death (HR,0.593; 95% CI, 0.462-0.541; P<0.001) than the EES groups. Conclusions. In this study, BES was superior to EES or ZES in reducing total death, cardiac death, TLF, and MACE in AMI patients.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111995971&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1155/2021/6698582
DO - 10.1155/2021/6698582
M3 - Article
C2 - 34366721
AN - SCOPUS:85111995971
SN - 0896-4327
VL - 2021
JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiology
JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiology
M1 - 6698582
ER -