Impact of three or more sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent stenting with > or =3 sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) when compared with those treated with > or =3 paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for single coronary lesions is proven to be effective and durable. METHODS: A total of 126 patients who received DES were identified, of which 66 patients received > or =3 SES (SES group) and 60 patients received > or =3 PES (PES group). RESULTS: The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were compatible between the two study groups. During the index hospitalization, all clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. There were no deaths or Q-wave myocardial infarctions (MIs) in either group. At 30 days' and 6 months' follow-up, all clinical outcomes, including death, Q-wave MI, non-Q-wave MI, target lesion revascularization, target vascular revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events, were compatible between both groups. There were 2 patients (3.0%) with subacute thrombosis in the SES group and 1 patient (1.7%) in the PES group, but there was no statistical significance. There was no late thrombosis from either group. In addition, patients in the SES group had similar event-free survival rates as compared with those in the PES group (P = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who require > or =3 DES implantations experienced increased adverse clinical events as compared with historical single stent implantation. However, there were no differences in safety and efficacy among the patients treated with SES as compared with those treated with PES.     

Impact of overlapping drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for the treatment of single coronary lesions is proven to be effective and durable. However, the safety and efficacy of overlapping SES for the treatment of long lesions have not been well established. Objectives: We conducted a retrospective analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of overlapping versus nonoverlapping SES. METHODS: Fifty-five patients who received overlapping SES were compared with 39 patients who received nonoverlapping SES. RESULTS: The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were balanced between the two study groups. The in-hospital complications were similar between groups, except that non-Q-wave myocardial infarction was significantly higher in the Overlapping SES group when compared with the Nonoverlapping SES group (23.6% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.04). This higher rate of myonecrosis is due to periprocedural side branch compromises, including side branch narrowing, occlusion, and flow reduction. At 30 days and 6 months follow-up, all clinical outcomes were similar between the study groups. In addition, the event-free survival rate was similar between groups (P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of overlapping SES for the treatment of long, native coronary lesions is feasible and effective but is associated with an increased rate of periprocedural myonecrosis. This phenomenon is caused primarily by side branch compromises, but does not have any adverse impact on late clinical events.     

Ten-year outcomes of early generation sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with left main coronary artery disease

To compare 10-year outcomes after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. Very long-term outcome data of patients with LMCA disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) have not been well described. In 10-year extended follow-up of the MAINCOMPARE registry, we evaluated 778 patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis who were treated with SES (n = 607) or PES (n = 171) between January 2000 and June 2006. The primary composite outcome (a composite of death, myocardial infarction [MI] or target-vessel revascularization [TVR]) was compared with an inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting (IPTW) adjustment. Clinical events have linearly accumulated over 10 years. At 10 years, there were no significant differences between SES and PES in the observed rates of the primary composite outcome (42.0% vs. 47.4%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–1.10), and definite stent thrombosis (ST) (1.9% vs. 1.8%; HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.28–3.64). In the IPTW-adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences between SES and PES in the risks for the primary composite outcome (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65–1.14) or definite ST (adjusted HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29–3.90). In patients who underwent DES implantation, high overall adverse clinical event rates (with a linearly increasing event rate over time) were observed during extended follow-up. At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with SES vs. PES for LMCA disease. The incidence of stent thrombosis was quite low and comparable between the groups.     

Impact of chronic renal insufficiency on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents

Patients with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) have higher rates of target vessel revascularization and mortality. The efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) to improve the clinical outcomes of these patients is unknown. We investigated the effect of SESs versus bare metal stents (BMSs) on outcomes of patients with CRI. Among the first 1,522 patients treated with SESs, 76 were identified with CRI and 1,446 without CRI. In-hospital and 1- and 6-month clinical outcomes were compared with 153 patients with CRI who were treated with BMSs. Patients with CRI were older, hypertensive, and diabetic and had more previous myocardial infarctions, revascularizations, and decreased left ventricular function (p <0.001). These patients had more saphenous vein graft lesions, were treated with more debulking devices (p <0.003), and had higher rates of in-hospital complications and mortality (p <0.001) compared with those without CRI. Among patients with CRI, treatment with SESs did not affect clinical outcomes at 1 month and was associated with lower incidences of target vessel revascularization (7.1% vs 22.1%, p = 0.02) at 6 months but did not affect other events, including mortality (16.7% vs 14.7% p = 0.89), compared with BMSs. However, treatment with SESs in patients without CRI was associated with significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiac events at 6 months (p <0.001). In conclusion, percutaneous coronary intervention with SESs in patients with CRI is associated with low rates of repeat revascularization compared with BMSs but has no effect on mortality at 6 months.     

真实世界中延迟与急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗并置入药物洗脱支架对ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者远期预后的影响

目的比较延迟(12～72 h)与急诊(<12 h)经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)并置入药物洗脱支架(DES)对ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者远期预后的影响。方法本研究为单中心回顾性观察随访研究。连续入选2013年于中国医学科学院阜外医院就诊并于发病后72 h内行PCI成功并置入DES的STEMI患者303例。根据PCI时机分为延迟PCI(12～72 h)77例和急诊PCI(<12 h)226例两组,随访2年。主要终点为主要不良心血管事件(MACE),包括心原性死亡、心肌梗死、明确或可能的支架血栓及缺血性卒中,次要终点为缺血驱动的靶血管血运重建。结果延迟PCI与急诊PCI两组间的2年MACE(9.1%比8.4%,P=0.85)和缺血驱动的靶血管血运重建(5.2%比4.4%,P=0.18)发生率均无显著性差异。对于梗死相关动脉完全闭塞的亚组患者,两组间的2年MACE(12.2%比8.4%,P=0.45)和缺血驱动的靶血管血运重建(7.3%比5.6%,P=0.71)发生率亦无显著性差异。校正两组主要基线特征,进行1∶1倾向性评分匹配分析显示,两组间的2年MACE(9.5%比8.1%,P=0.77)和缺血驱动的靶血管血运重建(5.4%比5.4%,P=1.00)发生率亦无显著性差异。结论本研究提示,延迟PCI与急诊PCI并置入DES对STEMI患者远期预后的影响无明显差异。因此,对于未能在最佳时间窗内行急诊PCI的STEMI患者,及时行延迟PCI并置入DES不失为一种积极的治疗选择。     

Comparison of one-year clinical outcomes with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in everyday practice

BACKGROUND:

In randomized trials, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been shown to be superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in reducing restenosis. However, the effectiveness of PES in patients treated during routine practice has not been fully established.

METHODS:

A retrospective comparison of PES with BMS in consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from April 2003 to March 2004 was conducted. Outcomes included the composite of death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at one year, as well as stent thrombosis.

RESULTS:

A total of 512 patients were treated with PES, and 722 patients were treated with BMS. Patients in the PES group were more likely to receive stents that were 20 mm in length or longer (52.2% versus 33.3%, P<0.0001), 2.5 mm in diameter or smaller (29.1% versus 12.5%, P<0.0001) and implanted in bifurcation positions (15.4% versus 11.6%, P=0.02). At one year, the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction and TLR was 6.1% in the PES group compared with 10.8% in the BMS group (P=0.004). The one-year rate of stent thrombosis was 0.59% in the PES group compared with 0.28% in the BMS group (P=0.4).

CONCLUSIONS:

Despite being used in higher-risk lesions, there was a lower rate of major cardiac events at one year in patients treated with PES, primarily driven by the reduction in TLR. Thus, the experience with PES in contemporary practice applied to a broader population appears to be consistent with the results reported in randomized trials.     

Impact of "off-label" utilization of drug-eluting stents on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

The utilization of drug-eluting stents (DES) in "real world" practice has deviated from Food and Drug Administration-approved indications. Safety concerns have arisen from recent reports that suggested increased mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) with DES usage. Little is known about the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing intracoronary DES implantation for unapproved indications as a group compared with outcomes after bare metal stent (BMS) placement. The clinical outcomes of 546 patients undergoing DES implantation for >or=1 non-Food and Drug Administration-approved ("off label") indication since the approval of the device were assessed. The group was then matched by propensity score with 546 patients receiving BMSs prior to DES approval for the same indications. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal Q-wave myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization) at 12 months. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were well matched between BMS and DES groups. The use of debulking devices was higher in the BMS group. Patients in the BMS group were more likely to be treated with larger diameter and shorter stents. There was no significant difference in the rate of in-hospital and 30-day adverse cardiac events. At 12 months, the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events was significantly reduced in the DES group (23.6% vs 16.7%, p=0.004), driven by reductions in the need for repeat revascularization (target lesion revascularization: 16.4% vs 7.8%, p<0.001; target vessel revascularization: 20.2% vs 13.1%, p=0.003). There was no significant difference in freedom from cardiac death or nonfatal Q-wave MI between groups (p=0.27). In conclusion, the utilization of DES for non-Food and Drug Administration-approved indications proved to be efficacious and safe when compared with a BMS cohort matched by propensity score. The advantage for DES was driven by reductions in repeat revascularization. "Off-label" DES use was not associated with increased rates of cardiac death and nonfatal MI at 12 months.     

Angiographic and clinical outcomes of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND: Heparin with adjunctive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet receptor (GP IIb/IIIa) inhibitors has demonstrated its effectiveness in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Bivalirudin, a direct thrombin inhibitor, has recently been shown to be an effective alternative for patients undergoing elective PCI. OBJECTIVES: To assess the angiographic and clinical outcomes of adjunctive pharmacological strategies in a high-risk population presenting with ACS. METHODS: Of 891 consecutive PCI patients with ACS, 304 received bivalirudin (60.5% male, 68+/-11 years) and were compared with 283 who received heparin (58.7% male, 66+/-12 years). A 30-day major adverse cardiac event was defined as the occurrence of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization or major hemorrhage. RESULTS: Adjunctive GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in 14.1% of the bivalirudin group and in 72.4% of the heparin group (P<0.010). The occurrence of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow less than grade 3 was lower and the achievement of angiographic success was higher in the bivalirudin group than in the heparin group (5.2% versus 8.2%, 94.7% versus 89.7%, P=0.039 and P<0.010, respectively). There was no difference between groups in the incidence of bleeding events (bivalirudin 2.0% versus heparin 3.5%, P not significant) and in 30-day major adverse cardiac events (bivalirudin 8.3% versus heparin 5.7%, P=0.223). CONCLUSIONS: In the high-risk cohort undergoing PCI, bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors achieved better angiographic results. Although not powered to show a difference, and while acknowledging that a selection bias could have affected the data, the present study showed that bivalirudin may be as clinically effective and safe as heparin with adjunctive GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors.     

Comparison of clinical outcomes using stents versus no stents after percutaneous coronary intervention for proximal left anterior descending versus proximal right and left circumflex coronary arteries

Previous studies have demonstrated that proximal left anterior descending (LAD) stenoses have higher rates of restenosis after angioplasty than stenoses in other coronary segments. Stenting strategies may reduce this high rate of LAD restenosis. The study population included 1,289 patients with proximal coronary artery stenoses treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with or without stents for single-vessel coronary disease between 1994 and 1999. Patients were divided into 4 groups: non-stent PCI in the proximal LAD artery (n = 168), non-stent PCI in proximal right/circumflex artery (n = 217), stent in the proximal LAD artery (n = 364), and stent to proximal right/circumflex artery (n = 540). Procedural success was higher in the stenting groups, but there were no significant differences in the major in-hospital events between the different lesion locations among the groups. At 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in mortality or myocardial infarction between the groups. There was no significant difference in the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) in the patients with proximal LAD stents compared with the patients with proximal right/circumflex coronary artery stents (10.1% vs 13.8%, p = 0.11). In the patients who did not receive stents with proximal narrowings, there was a significant increase in TLR in the LAD group compared with the right/circumflex group (21.1% vs 12.5%, p = 0.04). Thus, patients with proximal stenoses treated with non-stenting strategies have lower procedural success than those treated with stenting strategies; the patients with proximal LAD non-stent PCI have significantly higher rates of clinical restenosis than patients with proximal right and circumflex stenoses. A stenting strategy for proximal LAD stenoses appears to attenuate the differences of clinical restenosis noted after non-stent PCI.     

The efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents for diabetic patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a well-known risk factor for future adverse cardiac events after coronary intervention with conventional metal stents. In this study, the impact of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) were evaluated in a consecutive group of diabetic patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary treatment and compared to a population treated with bare metal stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2002, a policy of routine SES implantation has been instituted in our hospital. During 1 year of enrollment, a total of 112 consecutive diabetic patients with de novo coronary lesions were electively treated with SES (SES group). A similar group for comparison comprised 118 consecutive patients treated with bare metal stents in the preceding period (the pre-SES group). After 1-year follow-up, the cumulative rate of major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization) was 17.3% in the SES group versus 30.2% in the pre-SES group (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.91]; p = 0.02), mainly due to a marked reduction in the need for repeat revascularization (10.2% versus 23.5%; hazard ratio, 0.40 [95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.78]; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Routine utilization of SES for diabetic patients significantly reduces the rate of adverse cardiac events at 1 year compared to bare metal stents.     

Long-term outcomes of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing early versus late delayed percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents

正Objective To compare the long-term outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent early or late delayed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES).Methods This study was a retrospective,observational and single-center study.Consecutive STEMI patients(n=977),who admitted to Fuwai Hospital in 2013 and underwent successful selective PCI using drug-eluting     

Impact of insulin resistance on 1-year clinical outcomes in non-diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents

BackgroundInsulin resistance (IR) is known to be a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to evaluate the impact of IR on 1-year clinical outcomes in non-diabetic CAD patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DESs).Methods and resultsA total of 229 consecutive non-diabetic CAD patients treated with DESs were enrolled. Study population was divided into IR group [homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) index ≥ 2.5, n = 54] and non-IR group (HOMA index < 2.5, n = 175). Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were similar between the groups except higher incidence of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and lower incidence of multivessel disease as the target vessel in the non-IR group. There was a trend toward longer restenosis lesion length in the IR group at 6 months angiographic follow up but composite major clinical outcomes up to 1 year were similar between the two groups.ConclusionsDespite worse trend in angiographic outcomes in the IR group (HOMA index ≥ 2.5), it was not translated into worse 1-year major clinical outcomes following PCI with DESs as compared to the non-IR group.     

Comparison of outcomes of patients with painless versus painful ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

There are few data available on the prognosis of painless ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of painless STEMI. We analyzed the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) study, which enrolled 7,288 patients with STEMI (61.8 ± 12.8 years old, 74% men; painless STEMI group, n = 763; painful STEMI group, n = 6,525). End points were in-hospital mortality and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Patients with painless STEMI were older and more likely to be women, nonsmokers, diabetic, and normolipidemic and to have a higher Killip class. The painless group had more in-hospital deaths (5.9% vs 3.6%, p = 0.026) and 1-year MACEs (26% vs 19%, p = 0.002). In Cox proportional hazards analysis, hypotension (hazard ratio [HR] 4.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41 to 13.78, p = 0.011), low left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 3.12, 95% CI 1.21 to 8.07, p = 0.019), and a high Killip class (HR 3.48, 95% CI 1.19 to 10.22, p = 0.023) were independent predictors of 1-year MACEs in patients with painless STEMI. In conclusion, painless STEMI was associated with more adverse outcomes than painful STEMI and late detection may have contributed significantly to total ischemic burden. These results warrant more investigations for methodologic development in the diagnosis of silent ischemia and painless STEMI.     

Comparison of the effectiveness of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for small coronary artery lesions.

BACKGROUND: The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) reduce restenosis in small coronary artery lesions. However, it is not clear which of these stents is superior in terms of clinical outcomes. METHODS: The authors retrospectively examined 197 patients with 245 de novo small coronary artery lesions (相似文献   

Comparison of inflammatory response after implantation of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients on hemodialysis

Because systemic inflammation after coronary intervention places patients at increased risk of subsequent cardiac events, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes and chronic serum inflammation markers of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in hemodialysis patients. Paclitaxel-eluting stents and SES were implanted in 36 patients with 46 lesions, and 32 patients with 40 lesions, respectively. In addition to 1-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), neopterin, intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) and vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) were also compared before and 9 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The incidence of MACE was significantly lower in the PES group than in the SES group (11.1 vs. 25.0 %, respectively, P = 0.042), mainly due to the reduction of target lesion revascularization in the PES group (6.5 vs. 17.5 %, P = 0.003). The logarithm of hs-CRP as well as IL-6 decreased significantly 9 months post-PCI compared with pre-PCI in the PES group (hs-CRP: 3.65 ± 0.35 vs. 2.91 ± 0.48, P = 0.007; IL-6: 6.73 ± 3.66 vs. 2.61 ± 2.29, P = 0.017) but not in the SES group (hs-CRP: 3.33 ± 0.29 vs. 3.42 ± 0.27, P not significant; IL-6: 6.08 ± 4.97 vs. 5.66 ± 4.29, P not significant). However, neopterin, ICAM-1, and VCAM-1 remained unchanged both pre-PCI and 9 months post-PCI in both groups. Moreover, MACE were less frequent in patients with decreased hs-CRP levels 9 months post-PCI compared with patients without decreased hs-CRP levels (P = 0.002) in all patients. Paclitaxel-eluting stents appear to be more effective than SES in reducing MACE rates, especially target lesion revascularization, and may be able to stabilize local inflammatory changes of target lesions specifically in patients on hemodialysis. Thus PES, which inhibit in-stent restenosis and cardiac events in hemodialysis patients, may play an important role in suppression of chronic inflammatory response in target lesions as compared with SES. Chronic continuous inflammation plays an important role after implantation of both types of stent with regard to in-stent restenosis in patients on hemodialysis.     

Early and late clinical outcomes following coronary perforation in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Coronary perforation is a rare but serious complication that occurs during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study examines the frequency of coronary perforation during PCI, evaluates the management strategies used to treat perforations, and describes the long-term prognosis of patients who have developed coronary perforation during PCI. Coronary perforations were found in 69 (0.93%) of 7,443 consecutive PCI procedures, occurring more often after use of a new device (0.86%) than after use of balloon angioplasty (0.41%) (p<0.05). Coronary perforation was attributable solely to the coronary guidewire in 27 (0.36%) cases. Coronary perforations were divided into 2 types: (1) Those with epicardial staining without ajet of contrast extravasation (type I, n=51), and (2) those with a jet of contrast extravasation (type II, n= 18). Patients with type I and type II perforations were managed by observation only (35% and 0%, respectively), reversal of anticoagulation (57% and 94%), pericardiocentesis and drainage (27% and 61%), and prolonged perfusion balloon angioplasty (16% and 100%). Two patients with type II perforations required emergency coronary artery bypass surgery. There were no in-hospital deaths. Late pseudoaneurysms developed in 18 (28.6%) patients during the 13.4 +/- 11.3 months' follow-up period, and were more common in patients with type II perforations (72.2% vs 11.1% with type I perforations; p<0.001). During the follow-up period, no patient had evidence of coronary rupture. The results suggest that coronary perforation is uncommon after PCI, and can be managed without cardiac surgery in the majority of cases. Late pseudoaneurysms developed in some patients, particularly in patients with type II perforations, but there were no late consequences of coronary perforation after PCI.     

不同药物洗脱支架在冠状动脉弥漫性长病变中的2年随访结果比较

目的评价在冠状动脉弥漫性长病变中使用重叠西罗莫司（雷帕霉素）洗脱支架（SES）与重叠紫杉醇洗脱支架（PES）的疗效及安全性。方法研究入选冠状动脉弥漫性长病变患者197例,分别接受重叠SES（CypherTM,75例,110处病变）或PES（TaxusTM,122例,177处病变）。比较两组随访6个月时造影及随访2年时的临床结果。结果随访6个月时造影结果表明,SES组最小管腔直径显著高于PES组（P=0.013）;晚期管腔丢失、再狭窄百分比和二元再狭窄率显著低于PES组（P均〈0.05）。2年临床随访结果显示,SES组总死亡率、靶病变血运重建、靶血管血运重建及主要不良心脏事件的发生率显著低于PES组（P均〈0.05）。多因素回归分析显示,相较于PES,SES是随访2年时总死亡（OR=0.20,95%CI：0.05~0.83,P=0.027）、靶病变重建（OR=0.26,95%CI：0.10~0.73,P=0.010）和主要不良心脏事件（OR=0.38,95%CI：0.18~0.82,P=0.014）的独立保护性预测因素。结论在冠状动脉弥漫性长病变治疗中,相较于重叠使用PES,重叠SES显著改善了6个月时的造影随访结果,并且该结果能转化成为更佳的2年临床随访结果。