4.5 Article

Five-year clinical outcomes of the first Korean-made sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with abluminal biodegradable polymer

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 100, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025765

关键词

coronary artery disease; drug-eluting stents; Sirolimus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the 5-year clinical outcomes of the Genoss DES, a Korean-made sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with abluminal biodegradable polymer, and found comparable rates of major adverse cardiac events with the Promus Element stent. The results confirm the reliability and effectiveness of the Genoss DES stent.
This study evaluated the 5-year clinical outcomes of the Genoss DES, the first Korean-made sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with abluminal biodegradable polymer. We previously conducted the first-in-patient prospective, multicenter, randomized trial with a 1:1 ratio of patients using the Genoss DES and Promus Element stents; the angiographic and clinical outcomes of the Genoss DES stent were comparable to those of the Promus Element stent. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 5 years. We enrolled 38 patients in the Genoss DES group and 39 in the Promus Element group. Thirty-eight patients (100%) from the Genoss DES group and 38 (97.4%) from the Promus Element group were followed up at 5 years. The rates of MACE (5.3% vs 12.8%, P = .431), death (5.3% vs 10.3%, P = .675), TLR (2.6% vs 2.6%, P = 1.000), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (7.9% vs 2.6%, P = .358) at 5 years did not differ significantly between the groups. No TLR or target vessel revascularization was reported from years 1 to 5 after the index procedure, and no MI or stent thrombosis occurred in either group during 5 years. The biodegradable polymer Genoss DES and durable polymer Promus Element stents showed comparable low rates of MACE at the 5-year clinical follow-up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据