Blog
About

13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Drug-Eluting Stents Compared with Bare Metal Stents Improve Late Outcome after Saphenous Vein Graft but Not after Large Native Vessel Interventions

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Objectives: To define long-term efficacy of different stent types in saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions. Methods: In BASKET (Basel Stent Cost Effectiveness Trial), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), i.e. cardiac death, myocardial infarction and symptom-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) were assessed after 18 months comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS), and SVG and large native vessels (≧3.0 mm). Results: Large vessel interventions were performed in 605 patients. Patients with SVG interventions (n = 47, 8%) were older and had more often hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, prior revascularization and multivessel disease and less frequent ST-elevation myocardial infarction than patients with large native vessel interventions (n = 558, 92%). Stent number and length were higher in SVG than in large native vessel interventions. Baseline characteristics were similar for DES and BMS. In SVG stenting, long-term outcome was better in DES- than in BMS-treated patients (MACE 21 vs. 62%, p = 0.007, mainly due to TVR 18 vs. 46%, p = 0.045), but for large native vessel stenting, no significant difference was noted (MACE: 13 vs. 16%, p = 0.40). Conclusions: Among patients with SVG disease, treatment with DES resulted in a better long-term outcome than treatment with BMS. In contrast, no DES benefit was found in similarly sized native vessels regarding MACE.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 29

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

          Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery.

          Preliminary reports of studies involving simple coronary lesions indicate that a sirolimus-eluting stent significantly reduces the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary revascularization. We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial comparing a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent in 1058 patients at 53 centers in the United States who had a newly diagnosed lesion in a native coronary artery. The coronary disease in these patients was complex because of the frequent presence of diabetes (in 26 percent of patients), the high percentage of patients with longer lesions (mean, 14.4 mm), and small vessels (mean, 2.80 mm). The primary end point was failure of the target vessel (a composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, and repeated percutaneous or surgical revascularization of the target vessel) within 270 days. The rate of failure of the target vessel was reduced from 21.0 percent with a standard stent to 8.6 percent with a sirolimus-eluting stent (P<0.001)--a reduction that was driven largely by a decrease in the frequency of the need for revascularization of the target lesion (16.6 percent in the standard-stent group vs. 4.1 percent in the sirolimus-stent group, P<0.001). The frequency of neointimal hyperplasia within the stent was also decreased in the group that received sirolimus-eluting stents, as assessed by both angiography and intravascular ultrasonography. Subgroup analyses revealed a reduction in the rates of angiographic restenosis and target-lesion revascularization in all subgroups examined. In this randomized clinical trial involving patients with complex coronary lesions, the use of a sirolimus-eluting stent had a consistent treatment effect, reducing the rates of restenosis and associated clinical events in all subgroups analyzed. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization.

            The need for repeated treatment of restenosis of a treated vessel remains the main limitation of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Because sirolimus (rapamycin) inhibits the proliferation of lymphocytes and smooth-muscle cells, we compared a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard uncoated stent in patients with angina pectoris. We performed a randomized, double-blind trial to compare the two types of stents for revascularization of single, primary lesions in native coronary arteries. The trial included 238 patients at 19 medical centers. The primary end point was in-stent late luminal loss (the difference between the minimal luminal diameter immediately after the procedure and the diameter at six months). Secondary end points included the percentage of in-stent stenosis of the luminal diameter and the rate of restenosis (luminal narrowing of 50 percent or more). We also analyzed a composite clinical end point consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and percutaneous or surgical revascularization at 1, 6, and 12 months. At six months, the degree of neointimal proliferation, manifested as the mean (+/-SD) late luminal loss, was significantly lower in the sirolimus-stent group (-0.01+/-0.33 mm) than in the standard-stent group (0.80+/-0.53 mm, P<0.001). None of the patients in the sirolimus-stent group, as compared with 26.6 percent of those in the standard-stent group, had restenosis of 50 percent or more of the luminal diameter (P<0.001). There were no episodes of stent thrombosis. During a follow-up period of up to one year, the overall rate of major cardiac events was 5.8 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 28.8 percent in the standard-stent group (P<0.001). The difference was due entirely to a higher rate of revascularization of the target vessel in the standard-stent group. As compared with a standard coronary stent, a sirolimus-eluting stent shows considerable promise for the prevention of neointimal proliferation, restenosis, and associated clinical events.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease.

              Restenosis after coronary stenting necessitates repeated percutaneous or surgical revascularization procedures. The delivery of paclitaxel to the site of vascular injury may reduce the incidence of neointimal hyperplasia and restenosis. At 73 U.S. centers, we enrolled 1314 patients who were receiving a stent in a single, previously untreated coronary-artery stenosis (vessel diameter, 2.5 to 3.75 mm; lesion length, 10 to 28 mm) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. A total of 652 patients were randomly assigned to receive a bare-metal stent, and 662 to receive an identical-appearing, slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent. Angiographic follow-up was prespecified at nine months in 732 patients. In terms of base-line characteristics, the two groups were well matched. Diabetes mellitus was present in 24.2 percent of patients; the mean reference-vessel diameter was 2.75 mm, and the mean lesion length was 13.4 mm. A mean of 1.08 stents (length, 21.8 mm) were implanted per patient. The rate of ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at nine months was reduced from 12.0 percent with the implantation of a bare-metal stent to 4.7 percent with the implantation of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk, 0.39; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.59; P<0.001). Target-lesion revascularization was required in 3.0 percent of the group that received a paclitaxel-eluting stent, as compared with 11.3 percent of the group that received a bare-metal stent (relative risk, 0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.43; P<0.001). The rate of angiographic restenosis was reduced from 26.6 percent to 7.9 percent with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk, 0.30; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.46; P<0.001). The nine-month composite rates of death from cardiac causes or myocardial infarction (4.7 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively) and stent thrombosis (0.6 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively) were similar in the group that received a paclitaxel-eluting stent and the group that received a bare-metal stent. As compared with bare-metal stents, the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent is safe and markedly reduces the rates of clinical and angiographic restenosis at nine months. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CRD
                Cardiology
                10.1159/issn.0008-6312
                Cardiology
                S. Karger AG
                0008-6312
                1421-9751
                2009
                November 2008
                26 June 2008
                : 112
                : 1
                : 49-55
                Affiliations
                Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
                Article
                137699 Cardiology 2009;112:49–55
                10.1159/000137699
                18580059
                © 2008 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: 3, Tables: 1, References: 33, Pages: 7
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article