A comparison of 1-month and 6-month XXXX therapy on clinical and angiographic outcome after stent implantation.

@entity1 @entity301 @entity1397 @entity117 @entity256 @entity583 @entity204
In this study, we aimed to disclose the net effect of long-term (6-month) @entity1397 treatment as compared to that of short-term (1-month) treatment in the poststenting period. A total of 278 @entity1 with successful stent implantation were involved in the study. After preloading with 300 mg of @entity1397 orally (p.o.) 24 h prior to the procedure, randomly selected @entity1 were given either 75 mg p.o. for 1 month (group A) or 75 mg p.o. for 6 months (group B). The @entity1 were followed up clinically and underwent control angiography at 6 months regardless of their clinical status to delineate the coronary anatomy and assess quantitative computer-assisted (QCA) analysis. In 140 (50.4%) @entity1 (group A), 244 (50.6%) stents were used to treat 237 coronary lesions, and in 138 @entity1 (group B), 238 (49.4%) stents were used to treat 238 coronary lesions. There was no difference between the groups with respect to any of the clinical characteristics, intracoronary thrombus, antiaggregant therapy, the type of lesion, vessel score index, and baseline QCA parameters. In 62 @entity1 @entity256 (ISR) was determined with no statistical difference between the groups (group A: 20.7% vs group B: 23.9%, P = not significance). There was also no difference between the two groups at 6 months regarding QCA parameters. Thirty-seven of the 62 @entity1 with @entity256 have developed major adverse coronary events such as @entity204 , @entity583 , and target vessel revascularization (group A: 12.9% vs group B: 13.8%, P = not significant). In @entity1 with @entity301 , in the poststenting period, 6-month @entity1397 use as an adjunct to @entity117 has shown no benefit over 1 month use with respect to clinical outcome and angiographic outcome, such as @entity256 rate, follow-up, minimal luminal diameter, late loss, lost index, and net gain.
