4.4 Review

New-Generation Coronary Stents: Current Data and Future Directions

期刊

CURRENT ATHEROSCLEROSIS REPORTS
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

CURRENT MEDICINE GROUP
DOI: 10.1007/s11883-017-0654-1

关键词

Newer generation coronary stents; Bioabsorbable stents; BVS; PCI; Angioplasty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of Review Drug-eluting stents are the mainstay in the treatment of coronary artery disease using percutaneous coronary intervention. Innovations developed to overcome the limitations of prior generations of stents include biodegradable polymer stents, drug-eluting stents without a polymer, and bioabsorbable scaffolds. Our review briefly discusses the clinical profiles of first-and second-generation coronary stents, and provides an up-to-date overview of design, technology, and clinical safety and efficacy profiles of newer generation coronary stents discussing the relevant clinical trials in this rapidly evolving area of interventional cardiology. Recent Findings Drug-eluting stents have previously been shown to be superior to bare metal stents. Secondgeneration everolimus-eluting stents have proven to have superior outcomes compared with first-generation paclitaxel-and sirolimus-eluting stents, and the secondgeneration zotarolimus-eluting stents appear to be similar to the everolimus-eluting stents, though with a lesser degree of evidence. Stents with biodegradable polymers have not been shown to be superior to everolimuseluting stents. Bioabsorbable scaffolds have not demonstrated better outcomes than current standard treatment with second-generation drug-eluting stents but have showed a concerning signal of late and very late stent thrombosis. Summary Everolimus-eluting stents have the most favorable outcomes in terms of safety as well as efficacy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Newer innovations such as biodegradable polymers and bioabsorbable scaffolds lack clinical data to replace second-generation drug-eluting stents as standard of care.

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

4.4
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