Acute cardiac care · 2008
Immediate procedural and long-term clinical outcomes following drug-eluting stent implantation to ostial saphenous vein graft lesions.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaplan Sahin, Barlis Peter, Kiris Abdulkadir, Dimopoulos Konstantinos, Celik Sukru, Di Mario Carlo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ostial saphenous vein graft (OSVG) lesions were excluded from all the clinical trials demonstrating significantly lower restenosis rates with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DES in OSVG lesions by assessing angiographic and 12-month clinical outcomes.
METHODS: 70 consecutive patients (70 OSVG lesions) underwent coronary stent implantation between May 2003 and April 2006: 37 lesions received DES and 33 lesions BMS. Endpoints were all cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), examined separately and as a combined end-point (major adverse cardiac events, MACE).
RESULTS: Procedural (94.6% for DES and 87.9% for BMS) and angiographic (100% for DES and 100% for BMS) success did not differ between the two groups. The only in-hospital events were non-Q wave MI (DES 8.1% versus BMS 12.1%, P=0.69). At 30-day follow-up, there were no other events. Overall, at 1-year follow-up, the BMS group had a higher TLR (30.3% versus 5.4%, P=0.015), TVR (33.3% versus 10.8%, P=0.045) and MACE rate (36.4% versus 10.8%, P=0.024) compared to the DES group.
CONCLUSIONS: Drug-eluting stent implantation to OSVG lesions achieves better clinical results than BMS but is still associated with a relatively high incidence (10.8%) of revascularization at 1-year follow-up.
METHODS: 70 consecutive patients (70 OSVG lesions) underwent coronary stent implantation between May 2003 and April 2006: 37 lesions received DES and 33 lesions BMS. Endpoints were all cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), examined separately and as a combined end-point (major adverse cardiac events, MACE).
RESULTS: Procedural (94.6% for DES and 87.9% for BMS) and angiographic (100% for DES and 100% for BMS) success did not differ between the two groups. The only in-hospital events were non-Q wave MI (DES 8.1% versus BMS 12.1%, P=0.69). At 30-day follow-up, there were no other events. Overall, at 1-year follow-up, the BMS group had a higher TLR (30.3% versus 5.4%, P=0.015), TVR (33.3% versus 10.8%, P=0.045) and MACE rate (36.4% versus 10.8%, P=0.024) compared to the DES group.
CONCLUSIONS: Drug-eluting stent implantation to OSVG lesions achieves better clinical results than BMS but is still associated with a relatively high incidence (10.8%) of revascularization at 1-year follow-up.