Comparison of six-month angiographic and three-year outcomes after Sirolimus-eluting-stent implantation versus brachytherapy for bare metal in-stent restenosis

University of Ulsan, Urusan, Ulsan, South Korea
The American Journal of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 3.43). 08/2007; 100(3):425-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.03.040
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate long-term effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for diffuse bare metal in-stent restenosis (ISR), we compared 6-month angiographic and long-term (3-year) clinical outcomes of SES implantation and intracoronary brachytherapy (ICBT). SES implantation for diffuse ISR was performed in 120 consecutive patients and their results were compared with those from 240 patients treated with beta-radiation with balloons filled with rhenium-188 and mercaptoacetyltriglycine. The radiation dose was 15 or 18 Gy at a depth of 1.0 mm into the vessel wall. The primary end point was 3-year major adverse cardiac events including myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and target lesion revascularization. The 2 groups were similar in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Lesion lengths were 25.1 +/- 14.2 mm in the SES group and 24.5 +/- 10.4 mm in the ICBT group (p = 0.15). In-stent acute gain was greater in the SES group than in the ICBT group (2.23 +/- 0.62 vs 1.91 +/- 0.54 mm, p <0.001). We obtained 6-month angiographic follow-up in 287 patients (79.7%). In-segment angiographic restenoses were 7.4% (7 of 94) in the SES group and 26.4% (51 of 193) in the ICBT group (p <0.05). Two myocardial infarctions (1 in each group) and 5 deaths (4 in SES group, 1 in ICBT group) occurred during 3-year follow-up. At 3 years, survival rates without target lesion revascularization (94.1 +/- 2.2% vs 84.6 +/- 2.3%, p = 0.011) and major adverse cardiac events (92.5 +/- 2.4% vs 84.2 +/- 2.4%, respectively, p = 0.03) were higher in the SES than in the ICBT group. In conclusion, compared with ICBT, SES implantation for diffuse ISR is more effective in decreasing recurrent restenosis and improving long-term outcomes.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary artery stents revolutionized the practice of interventional cardiology after they were first introduced in the mid-1980s. Since then, there have been significant developments in their design, the most notable of which has been the introduction of drug-eluting stents. This paper reviews the benefits, risks, and current status of Food and Drug Administration-approved drug-eluting stents.
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 08/2010; 56(10 Suppl):S1-42. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.06.007 · 15.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in the treatment of diffuse bare metal stent (BMS) restenosis as compared to the treatment of de novo coronary lesions in high restenosis risk patient population. BACKGROUND: To date limited long-term data are available about the treatment of BMS restenosis with DES. METHODS: Five hundred and fourteen consecutive patients who underwent DES implantation between January 2003 and October 2006 at our institute were studied: 201 patients received DES for treatment of BMS restenosis and 313 patients received DES for high restenosis risk de novo lesions. Outcomes were calculated using propensity score adjustment. Mean follow-up length was 45.6 ± 21.5 months. RESULTS: The rates of acute coronary syndrome, three-vessel disease, and diabetes were high in both restenosis and de novo groups: 44.8% versus 46.3%, 20.9% versus 28.7%, and 34.3% versus 38.9%, respectively. The incidence of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) yielded similar results in the restenosis group and de novo group at 4 years (10.4% vs 12.4%, P = 0.490). All-cause mortality was lower in the restenosis group at 4 years (7.4% vs 14.7%, P = 0.032); however, the incidence of definite and probable stent thrombosis did not differ (1.9% vs 1.6%, P = 0.708) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: DESs are safe in the treatment of diffuse BMS restenosis and the rate of additional TLR is acceptable as compared to the use of DES in de novo lesions.
    Journal of Interventional Cardiology 04/2013; DOI:10.1111/joic.12027 · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We performed a meta-analysis to compare therapeutic outcome/safety of drug-eluting stent (DES) and conventional in-stent restenosis (ISR) treatments. We browsed through large volume of clinical data by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and EBSCO databases. In this study, 11 randomized controlled trials, 17 non-randomized controlled trials, 6,330 patients, and 6,662 lesions were included. Clinical and coronary angiography follow-up for 6-16 months was included. The major outcomes were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We found that DES showed advantage in TLR (OR = 0.46; 95 % CI: 0.34, 0.62; P < 0.00001), MACE (OR = 0.51; 95 % CI: 0.34, 0.77; P = 0.001), Late Lumen Loss (IV = -0.30; 95 % CI: -0.44, -0.15; P < 0.0001), stenosis of lumen diameter (OR = -17.45; 95 % CI: -23.69, -11.21; P < 0.00001), and restenosis (OR = 0.26; 95 % CI: 0.17, 0.40; P < 0.00001) over conventional ISR treatment. Regarding cardiac death (OR = 0.80; 95 % CI: 0.55, 1.17; P = 0.25), myocardial infarction (OR = 1.00;95 %CI: 0.66, 1.51; P = 1.00) and late thrombosis (OR = 0.70; 95 % CI: 0.42, 1.17; P = 0.18), there was no significant difference between different treatments. We, therefore, concluded that in treating percutaneous coronary intervention-ISR, DES was more effective in reducing incidence of TLR, MACE, and restenosis, and decreasing severity of late lumen loss/stenosis of lumen diameter compared with bare metal stent, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, intracoronary brachytherapy, and cutting balloon treatments. There was no significant difference between DES and conventional therapy for ISR. As suggested by current statistical analysis, DES after ISR did not involve a higher incidence of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and thrombosis.
    Cell biochemistry and biophysics 06/2013; 68(1). DOI:10.1007/s12013-013-9692-7 · 2.38 Impact Factor