+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Insertion/Deletion Polymorphism Does Not Influence the Restenosis Rate after Coronary Stent Implantation


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background: Experimental studies have shown an activation of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) system as a response to endothelial injury. Recent publications have elucidated the hypothesis that the ACE gene polymorphism may influence the level of late luminal loss after coronary stent implantation. It is still unclear whether the polymorphism of the angiotensin gene is a major predictor of the extent of neointimal hyperplasia. In this multicenter study, we therefore tested the relationship between the ACE gene polymorphism and the restenosis rate after coronary stent implantation. Methods: As a substudy of the optimization with intracoronary ultrasound (ICUS) to reduce stent restenosis (OPTICUS) study, we analyzed ACE serum levels and the ACE gene polymorphism in 154 patients at 9 different centers. All patients underwent elective coronary stent implantation in a stenosis of a major coronary vessel. Balloon inflations were repeated until a satisfactory result was achieved in on-line quantitative coronary angiography or ICUS fulfilling the OPTICUS study criteria. After follow-up of 6 months, all patients underwent reangiography under identical projections as the baseline procedure. A blinded quantitative analysis of the initial procedure as well as the follow-up examinations were performed by an independent core laboratory. ACE gene polymorphism and ACE serum activity were measured at the 6-month follow-up in a double-blinded setting. Results: With respect to the ACE gene polymorphism, there were three subgroups: DD genotype (48 patients), ID (83 patients) and II (23 patients). The subgroups did not differ in regard to age, gender, extent of coronary artery disease, stenosis length, initial degree of stenosis or degree of stenosis after stent implantation. In all, 39 patients (25.3%) had significant restenosis: 12 DD patients (25.0%), 18 ID patients (21.7%) and 9 II patients (39.1%) (odds ratio 2.164, 95% confidence interval 0.853–5.493). We obtained the following results for ACE serum levels: 0.53 µmol/l/s in the DD subgroup, 0.29 µmol/l/s in the ID subgroup and 0.09 µmol/l/s in the II subgroup (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the influence of ACE gene polymorphism on the restenosis rate after coronary stent implantation adjusted for lesion length (>12 mm), ACE inhibitor or hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase (CSE) inhibitor treatment, age, male gender, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, high cholesterol, family history, smoking and three-vessel disease did not uncover any statistic significance. Conclusions: In contrast to other study groups, we were unable to disclose that the DD polymorphism of the ACE gene was associated with a higher rate of restenosis after coronary stent implantation in this multicenter study. In addition, patients with higher ACE serum levels did not show a higher restenosis rate in this trial. We conclude that the pathogenesis of restenosis is a multifactorial process involving various genetic and nongenetic factors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group.

          Balloon-expandable coronary-artery stents were developed to prevent coronary restenosis after coronary angioplasty. These devices hold coronary vessels open at sites that have been dilated. However, it is unknown whether stenting improves long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes as compared with standard balloon angioplasty. A total of 520 patients with stable angina and a single coronary-artery lesion were randomly assigned to either stent implantation (262 patients) or standard balloon angioplasty (258 patients). The primary clinical end points were death, the occurrence of a cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, the need for coronary-artery bypass surgery, or a second percutaneous intervention involving the previously treated lesion, either at the time of the initial procedure or during the subsequent seven months. The primary angiographic end point was the minimal luminal diameter at follow-up, as determined by quantitative coronary angiography. After exclusions, 52 patients in the stent group (20 percent) and 76 patients in the angioplasty group (30 percent) reached a primary clinical end point (relative risk, 0.68; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.92; P = 0.02). The difference in clinical-event rates was explained mainly by a reduced need for a second coronary angioplasty in the stent group (relative risk, 0.58; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.85; P = 0.005). The mean (+/- SD) minimal luminal diameters immediately after the procedure were 2.48 +/- 0.39 mm in the stent group and 2.05 +/- 0.33 mm in the angioplasty group; at follow-up, the diameters were 1.82 +/- 0.64 mm in the stent group and 1.73 +/- 0.55 mm in the angioplasty group (P = 0.09), which correspond to rates of restenosis (diameter of stenosis, > or = 50 percent) of 22 and 32 percent, respectively (P = 0.02). Peripheral vascular complications necessitating surgery, blood transfusion, or both were more frequent after stenting than after balloon angioplasty (13.5 vs. 3.1 percent, P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the stent group than in the angioplasty group (8.5 vs. 3.1 days, P < 0.001). Over seven months of follow-up, the clinical and angiographic outcomes were better in patients who received a stent than in those who received standard coronary angioplasty. However, this benefit was achieved at the cost of a significantly higher risk of vascular complications at the access site and a longer hospital stay.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators.

            Coronary-stent placement is a new technique in which a balloon-expandable, stainless-steel, slotted tube is implanted at the site of a coronary stenosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of stent placement and standard balloon angioplasty on angiographically detected restenosis and clinical outcomes. We randomly assigned 410 patients with symptomatic coronary disease to elective placement of a Palmaz-Schatz stent or to standard balloon angioplasty. Coronary angiography was performed at base line, immediately after the procedure, and six months later. The patients who underwent stenting had a higher rate of procedural success than those who underwent standard balloon angioplasty (96.1 percent vs. 89.6 percent, P = 0.011), a larger immediate increase in the diameter of the lumen (1.72 +/- 0.46 vs. 1.23 +/- 0.48 mm, P < 0.001), and a larger luminal diameter immediately after the procedure (2.49 +/- 0.43 vs. 1.99 +/- 0.47 mm, P < 0.001). At six months, the patients with stented lesions continued to have a larger luminal diameter (1.74 +/- 0.60 vs. 1.56 +/- 0.65 mm, P = 0.007) and a lower rate of restenosis (31.6 percent vs. 42.1 percent, P = 0.046) than those treated with balloon angioplasty. There were no coronary events (death; myocardial infarction; coronary-artery bypass surgery; vessel closure, including stent thrombosis; or repeated angioplasty) in 80.5 percent of the patients in the stent group and 76.2 percent of those in the angioplasty group (P = 0.16). Revascularization of the original target lesion because of recurrent myocardial ischemia was performed less frequently in the stent group than in the angioplasty group (10.2 percent vs. 15.4 percent, P = 0.06). In selected patients, placement of an intracoronary stent, as compared with balloon angioplasty, results in an improved rate of procedural success, a lower rate of angiographically detected restenosis, a similar rate of clinical events after six months, and a less frequent need for revascularization of the original coronary lesion.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Intravascular ultrasound-guided optimized stent deployment. Immediate and 6 months clinical and angiographic results from the Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in Coronaries Study (MUSIC Study)

              A study was set up to validate the safety and feasibility of intravascular ultrasound-guided stenting without subsequent anticoagulation, and its impact on the 6 months restenosis rate. The study was designed to be multicentred, prospective, and observational. One hundred and sixty-one patients with stable angina and a de novo coronary artery lesion were enrolled. In four patients, the implantation of a Palmaz-Schatz (with spiral bridge) stent had failed. One of these four patients died 3 days following bypass surgery. In two other patients, intravascular ultrasound assessment was not performed. One hundred and twenty-five of the remaining 155 patients (81%) were treated with aspirin (100 mg x day(-1)), because all three criteria for optimized stent expansion were met. Twenty-two of the remaining 38 patients (25%), in whom at least one criterion was not met were treated with aspirin and acenocoumarol (3 months, INR 2.5-3.5), while 16 patients only received aspirin. Stent thrombosis was documented in two patients (1.3%) for which repeat angioplasty was performed. During the hospital stay, there were no deaths or Q-wave myocardial infarctions. Five patients (3.2%) sustained a non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. During the follow-up period (198+/-38 days, complete for all patients, except one), one patient (0.6%) sustained a Q-wave myocardial infarction, one (0.6%) underwent bypass surgery, and repeat angioplasty was performed in nine patients (5.7%). In two of the nine patients, repeat angioplasty involved another lesion. Therefore, the target lesion revascularization rate during follow-up was 4.5% (seven patients). At quantitative coronary angiography, the minimal lumen diameter (mean+/-SD) increased from 1.12+/-0.34 mm before to 2.89+/-0.35 mm after stenting. Repeat angiography at 6 months was performed in 144 patients (92%). The minimal lumen diameter at follow-up was 2.12+/-0.67 mm. Restenosis (diameter stenosis of 50% or more) was documented in 12 patients or 8.3%. When the two patients with documented stent thrombosis are included, the restenosis rate amounts to 97%. These data confirm that, in selected patients, stents can safely be implanted without the use of systemic anticoagulation, provided optimal stent expansion is achieved. The exact role of intravascular ultrasound in the achievement of these results needs to be established by appropriately designed studies. In the meantime, intravascular ultrasound coupled with the Palmaz-Schatz stent incorporating a spiral bridge, may have contributed considerably to the immediate angiographic outcome, which in turn may explain the favourable clinical and angiographic outcome at 6 months.

                Author and article information

                S. Karger AG
                March 2002
                07 March 2002
                : 97
                : 1
                : 29-36
                aClinic of Internal Medicine, University of Jena, bClinic of Internal Medicine, University of Munich, Germany; cDivision of Cardiology, University of Göteborg, Sweden; dOnassis Cardiology Center, Athens, Greece; eClinic of Internal Medicine, University of Frankfurt, Germany; fDepartment of Cardiology, University of Utrecht, TheNetherlands; gDivision of Cardiology, University of Hannover, Germany; hDepartment of Cardiology, LondonChest Hospital, London, UK; iDivision of Cardiology, University of Hamburg, Germany
                47416 Cardiology 2002;97:29–36
                © 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, References: 25, Pages: 8
                Catheterization and Interventional Cardiology


                Comment on this article