CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

The conductive function of biopolymer corrects myocardial scar conduction blockage and resynchronizes contraction to prevent heart failure Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk Dapagliflozin for treating chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin in Relation to Vascular Risk in the COMPASS Trial Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: An Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis Anticoagulation in Concomitant Chronic Kidney Disease and Atrial Fibrillation: JACC Review Topic of the Week Impact of epicardial adipose tissue on cardiovascular haemodynamics, metabolic profile, and prognosis in heart failure Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Vulnerable Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Edoxaban in 8040 Women Versus 13 065 Men With Atrial Fibrillation in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial Risk Stratification in PAH

Clinical Trial2020 Nov 3;EIJ-D-20-00556.

JOURNAL:Eurointervention. Article Link

A randomized comparison of Coronary Stents according to Short or Prolonged durations of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes: a pre-specified analysis of the SMART-DATE trial

WJ Jang, JB Lee, YB Song et al. Keywords: 6-month vs. 12-month DAPT; ACS; DES

ABSTRACT

AIMS - We sought to compare biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents(BP-BES) with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting(DP-EES) and zotarolimus-eluting stents(DP-ZES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome(ACS) according to different duration of dual antiplatelet therapy(DAPT).


METHODS AND RESULTS - In the SMART-DATE trial, 2712 patients with ACS underwent randomization for allocation of DAPT (6-month [n=1357] or 12-month or longer [n=1355]) and type of stents (BP-BES [n=901]), DP-EES [n=904], or DP-ZES [n=907]). At 18 months, primary endpoint (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) was 2.6% with BP-BES, 2.0% with DP-EES, and 2.1% with DP-ZES (HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.70-2.39, p=0.42 for BP-BES vs. DP-EES and HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.67-2.26, p=0.50 for BP-BES vs. DP-ZES). The treatment effect of BP-BES for the primary endpoint was consistent among patients receiving 6-month DAPT as well as those receiving 12-month or longer DAPT (BP-BES vs. DP-EES, pinteraction=0.48 and BP-BES vs. DP-ZES, pinteraction=0.87). After excluding 179 patients (101 in the BP-BES group) who did not receive allocated DES, per-protocol analysis showed similar results.


CONCLUSIONS - The risk of a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis was not significantly different between patients receiving BP-BES vs. DP-EES or DP-ZES across short or prolonged duration of DAPT after ACS.