59
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Stent thrombosis and restenosis: what have we learned and where are we going? The Andreas Grüntzig Lecture ESC 2014

      Read this article at

      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

          Modern-day stenting procedures leverage advances in pharmacotherapy and device innovation. Patients treated with contemporary antiplatelet agents, peri-procedural antithrombin therapy and new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have excellent outcomes over the short to medium term. Indeed, coupled with the reducing costs of these devices in most countries there remain very few indications where patients should be denied treatment with standard-of-care DES therapy. The two major causes of stent failure are stent thrombosis (ST) and in-stent restenosis (ISR). The incidence of both has reduced considerably in recent years. Current clinical registries and randomized trials with broad inclusion criteria show rates of ST at or <1% after 1 year and ∼0.2–0.4% per year thereafter; rates of clinical ISR are 5% respectively. Angiographic surveillance studies in large cohorts show rates of angiographic ISR of ∼10% with new-generation DES. The advent of high-resolution intracoronary imaging has shown that in many cases of late stent failure neoatherosclerotic change within the stented segment represents a final common pathway for both thrombotic and restenotic events. In future, a better understanding of the pathogenesis of this process may translate into improved late outcomes. Moreover, the predominance of non-stent-related disease as a cause of subsequent myocardial infarction during follow-up highlights the importance of lifestyle and pharmacological interventions targeted at modification of the underlying disease process. Finally, although recent developments focus on strategies which circumvent the need for chronically indwelling stents—such as drug-coated balloons or fully bioresorbable stents—more data are needed before the wider use of these therapies can be advocated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 86

          • 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 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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Heart J
                Eur. Heart J
                eurheartj
                ehj
                European Heart Journal
                Oxford University Press
                0195-668X
                1522-9645
                14 December 2015
                28 September 2015
                28 September 2015
                : 36
                : 47
                : 3320-3331
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München , Lazarettstr. 36, Munich, Germany
                [2 ]DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research) , Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Tel: +49 89 1218 4578, Fax: +49 89 1218 4053, Email: kastrati@ 123456dhm.mhn.de
                Article
                ehv511
                10.1093/eurheartj/ehv511
                4677274
                26417060
                © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                Product
                Categories
                Reviews
                Clinical Update

                Comments

                Comment on this article