Prospective randomized, single-blind, multicenter study of sirolimus-eluting coronary stent “Calypso” vs everolimus-eluting coronary stent “XiencePrime”: results of the PATRIOT trial
Автор: Prokhorikhin Alexey A., Baystrukov Vitaly I., Grazhdankin Igor O., Ponomarev Dmitry N., Verin Vladimir V., Osiev Alexander G., Ganyukov Vladimir I., Protopopov Alexey V., Dyomin Victor V., Abugov Sergey A., Boykov Andrey A., Malaev Dastan U., Karaskov Alexander M., Pokushalov Evgeny A., Kretov Evgeny I.
Журнал: Патология кровообращения и кардиохирургия @journal-meshalkin
Рубрика: Интервенционная кардиология
Статья в выпуске: 3 т.21, 2017 года.
Бесплатный доступ
Aim. This trial was aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting coronary stent “Calypso” (Angioline) and everolimus-eluting coronary stent “XiencePrime” (Abbott Vascular) when used for treatment of ischemic heart disease patients. Methods. The trial included patients suitable for coronary revascularization with coronary stenting. They underwent a standard revascularization procedure and were randomized in 2:1 ratio to receive “Calypso” coronary stent (Angioline) (n = 407) or “XiencePrime” coronary stent (AbbottVascular) (n = 203). The follow-up period was 12 months. In order to detect restenosis (secondary endpoint), angiographic follow-up was performed in 20% of cases at 12 months. The trial protocol had no limitations regarding the length of lesions, number of target lesions and number of implanted stents. The main exclusion criterion was STEMI. The composite primary endpoint included one-year target lesion-related complications determined as cardiogenic death, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. The primary endpoint data were evaluated by an independent committee. Results. In the trial, 55% of patients had acute coronary syndrome with ST elevation and type C lesions were detected in 46% of cases. In “Calypso” and “XiencePrime” groups, TLF occurred in 5.4% and 6.4% respectively (absolute risk difference in TLF accounted for 1%, 95% CI [-;2.1%]; p non-inferiority = 0.017). Thus, the hypothesis of non-inferiority of “Calypso” as compared to “XiencePrime” was confirmed. The incidence of stent thrombosis (definite and probable) was relatively low and had no significant differences between “Calypso” and “XiencePrime” groups (0.73% and 0%; p>0.05). Definite stent thrombosis was noted in two cases in the “Calypso” group (0.49%), in one case the cause of thrombosis turned out to be incomplete stent expansion after implantation. Conclusion. “Calypso” sirolimus eluting stent was not inferior to “XiencePrime” everolimus-eluting stent in treating patients with coronary heart disease.
Coronary stent, randomized trial, "calypso", ischemic heart disease
Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/142140809
IDR: 142140809 | DOI: 10.21688/1681