cardiovascular-agents and ridaforolimus

cardiovascular-agents has been researched along with ridaforolimus* in 2 studies

Trials

1 trial(s) available for cardiovascular-agents and ridaforolimus

ArticleYear
Outcomes Among Diabetic Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents: Analysis From the BIONICS Randomized Trial.
    JACC. Cardiovascular interventions, 2018, 12-24, Volume: 11, Issue:24

    The authors sought to investigate the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on outcomes following contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in the BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) trial.. Patients with DM are at increased risk for adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).. A prospective, multicenter, 1:1 randomized trial was conducted to evaluate in a noninferiority design the safety and efficacy of ridaforolimus-eluting stents versus zotarolimus-eluting stents among 1,919 patients undergoing PCI. Randomization was stratified to the presence of medically treated DM, and a pre-specified analysis compared outcomes according to the presence or absence of DM up to 2 years.. The overall prevalence of DM was 29.1% (559 of 1,919). DM patients had higher body mass index, greater prevalence of hyperlipidemia and hypertension, and smaller reference vessel diameter. One-year target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) was significantly higher among diabetic patients (7.8% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.002), mainly due to higher target lesion revascularization (4.5% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.002). Rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis did not statistically vary. Among 158 patients undergoing 13-month angiographic follow-up, restenosis rates were 3 times higher in diabetic patients compared with nondiabetic patients (15.2% vs. 4.7%; p = 0.01). Clinical and angiographic outcomes were similar between ridaforolimus-eluting stent- and zotarolimus-eluting stent-treated patients.. Despite advances in interventional therapies, and the implementation of new-generation DES, diabetic patients still have worse angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with nondiabetic patients undergoing PCI.

    Topics: Aged; Cardiovascular Agents; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Restenosis; Coronary Stenosis; Coronary Thrombosis; Diabetes Mellitus; Drug-Eluting Stents; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Prevalence; Prospective Studies; Prosthesis Design; Risk Factors; Single-Blind Method; Sirolimus; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome

2018

Other Studies

1 other study(ies) available for cardiovascular-agents and ridaforolimus

ArticleYear
Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: 2-Year Clinical Outcomes From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials.
    JACC. Cardiovascular interventions, 2020, 01-13, Volume: 13, Issue:1

    This study sought to determine clinical outcomes between treatment groups over long-term follow-up.. The safety and efficacy of a ridaforolimus-eluting stent (RES) was evaluated in the BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) and NIREUS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [BioNIR] European Angiography Study) trials, demonstrating noninferiority of RES in comparison with a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) regarding 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss, respectively.. Patient-level data from the BIONICS (N = 1,919) and NIREUS (N = 302) randomized trials were pooled, and outcomes in patients implanted with RES and ZES compared. Broad inclusion criteria allowed enrollment of patients with acute coronary syndromes and complex lesions. The primary endpoint was the 2-year rate of TLF or clinically driven target lesion revascularization.. A total of 2,221 patients (age 63.2 ± 10.3 years; 79.7% men) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES (n = 1,159) or ZES (n = 1,062) were included. Clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 2 years, the primary endpoint of TLF was similar among patients implanted with RES and ZES (7.0% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.94). Rates of target lesion revascularization (4.8% RES vs. 4.1% ZES; p = 0.41) and target vessel-related myocardial infarction (3.1% RES vs. 3.8% ZES; p = 0.52) did not differ between groups. The overall rate of stent thrombosis was also similar (0.5% RES vs. 0.9% ZES; p = 0.39).. In a pooled analysis of 2 randomized trials, 2-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of a broad population of patients with coronary artery disease.

    Topics: Aged; Cardiovascular Agents; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Thrombosis; Drug-Eluting Stents; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Prosthesis Design; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Sirolimus; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome

2020