Comparison of ridaforolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents: 5-Year outcomes from the BIONICS and NIREUS trials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Despite similarities between different modern drug eluting stents (DES), their comparative short and long-term safety and efficacy has generated much interest and yielded conflicting results. The BIONICS and the NIREUS randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of the Ridaforolimus eluting stent (RES) compared to the Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss. Aim To evaluate clinical outcomes between treatment groups over 5 years follow-up Methods BIONICS and NIREUS were prospective, randomized, single-blind multicenter trials comparing RES and ZES in patients undergoing PCI. Patients were blinded to treatment assignment and randomized to RES or ZES in a 1:1 fashion in BIONICS, and in 2:1 fashion in NIREUS. Clinical events were assessed during hospital stay, at 30 days, 1 year, and yearly thereafter, up to 5 years. The The primary endpoint in the current study was the 5-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF). Results The study population included 2221 patients enrolled in the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) studies. Median follow-up was 1822 days (interquartile range 1783 to 1847 days). Mean age was 63.2±10.3 years, and most patients were men (79.7%). Clinical presentation with ACS was similar between groups (38.9% versus 37.9%, RES versus ZES, respectively, p=0.38). Procedural characteristics were similar for patients treated with RES and ZES. A mean of 1.6±0.9 and 1.5±0.8 stents were implanted in RES and ZES patients, respectively, p=0.08. Post dilatation was performed more frequently in the RES group (63.3% versus 60.1%, p=0.02) and procedure duration was longer in RES versus ZES patients (47.0±31.8 minutes versus 44.6±29.2 minutes, p=0.01). Device success was high in both groups but slightly higher in the ZES group (98.2% versus 99.5% for RES and ZES, respectively, p=0.002) yet with similar procedural success (97.9% versus 97.3%, p=0.49). At 5 years, the primary endpoint of TLF was similar between treatment groups (12.2% RES versus 11.3% ZES, p=0.52). Rates of TLR (7.6% RES versus 6.8% ZES, p=0.42), target vessel-related MI (4.8% RES versus 4.9% ZES, p=0.95) and stent thrombosis (0.9% RES versus 0.9% ZES, p=0.87), also did not differ between groups. Target vessel revascularization (TVR) and cardiac death were higher among the RES group (12.3% versus 9.5% p=0.037, and 3.6% versus 2.2 % p=0.042, respectively). However, after correction for baseline characteristics there was no significant difference in cardiac death between groups. Conclusions In a pooled analysis of two randomized trials, 5-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing PCI with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.Central illustrationZES vs. RES
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».