0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessBackground To date, no specific drug-eluting stent (DES) has fully proven its superiority over others in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery stents in STEMI patients in a patient-level network meta-analysis. Methods Eligible studies were dedicated randomized controlled trials comparing different stents in STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with at least 12 months of clinical follow-up. Of 19 studies identified from the published data, individual patient data were collected in 15 studies with 10,979 patients representing 87.7% of patients in the overall network of evidence. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or target lesion revascularization. Results Overall, 8,487 (77.3%) of 10,979 STEMI patients were male and the mean age was 60.7 years. At a median follow-up of 3 years, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), patients treated with paclitaxel-, sirolimus-, everolimus-, or biolimus-eluting stents had a significantly lower risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs]: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63 to 0.88], 0.65 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.85], 0.70 [95% CI: 0.53 to 0.91], and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.88], respectively). The risk of primary endpoint was not different between patients treated with BMS and zotarolimus-eluting stents (adjusted HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.51 to 1.38]). Among patients treated with DES, no significant difference in the risk of the primary outcome was demonstrated. Treatment with second-generation DES was associated with significantly lower risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis compared with BMS (adjusted HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.42 to 0.89]) and first-generation DES (adjusted HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.36 to 0.88]). Conclusions In STEMI patients, DES were superior to BMS with respect to long-term efficacy. No difference in long-term efficacy and safety was observed among specific DES. Second-generation were superior to first-generation DES in reducing stent thrombosis. (Clinical Outcomes After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Using Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stent [DES]: Evidence From the Individual Patient Data Network Meta-Analysis; CRD42018104053)
Ply Chichareon, Rodrigo Modolo, Carlos Collet, Erhan Tenekecioğlu, M Vink, Pyung Chun Oh, Jung‐Min Ahn, Carmine Musto, Luis S. Díaz de la Llera, Young‐Seok Cho, Roberto Violini, Seung‐Jung Park, Harry Suryapranata, Jan J. Piek, Robbert J. de Winter, Joanna J. Wykrzykowska, Christian Spaulding, Woong Chol Kang, Ton Slagboom, Sjoerd H. Hofma, Inge Wijnbergen, Emilio Di Lorenzo, Nico H.J. Pijls, Lorenz Räber, Salvatore Brugaletta, Manel Sabaté, Hans-Peter Stoll, Gregg W. Stone, Stephan Windecker, Yoshinobu Onuma, Patrick W. Serruys (2019). Efficacy and Safety of Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 74(21), pp. 2572-2584, DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.038.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2019
Authors
31
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
English
Journal
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
DOI
10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.038
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access