MedStar Authors catalog › Details for: Safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents for bare-metal in-stent restenosis.
Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents for bare-metal in-stent restenosis.

by Ota, Hideaki; Torguson, Rebecca; Satler, Lowell F; Suddath, William O; Pichard, Augusto D; Waksman, Ron.
Citation: Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 16(3):151-5, 2015 Apr-May..Journal: Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions.ISSN: 1878-0938.Full author list: Ota H; Mahmoudi M; Torguson R; Satler LF; Suddath WO; Pichard AD; Waksman R.UI/PMID: 25977226.Subject(s): Adult | Aged | Aged, 80 and over | *Coronary Artery Disease/th [Therapy] | *Coronary Restenosis/th [Therapy] | *Drug-Eluting Stents | *Everolimus/tu [Therapeutic Use] | Female | Humans | Male | Middle Aged | *Myocardial Infarction/th [Therapy] | Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/mt [Methods] | Risk Factors | *Sirolimus/tu [Therapeutic Use] | Treatment OutcomeInstitution(s): MedStar Heart & Vascular InstituteActivity type: Journal Article.Medline article type(s): Journal ArticleDigital Object Identifier: (Click here) Abbreviated citation: Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 16(3):151-5, 2015 Apr-May.Local Holdings: Available in print through MWHC library: 2002 - present.Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) for the treatment of bare-metal in-stent restenosis; BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for bare-metal in-stent restenosis remains controversial; METHODS: The study cohort comprised 322 consecutive patients (543 lesions) who presented with bare-metal in-stent restenosis to our institution and underwent coronary artery stent implantation with EES (114 patients; 181 lesions), PES (65 patients; 116 lesions) and SES (143 patients; 246 lesions). The analyzed clinical parameters were the 1-year rates of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), definite stent thrombosis (ST) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as the composite of death, MI, or TLR at 1-year; RESULTS: The three groups were well matched for the conventional risk factors except for age and chronic kidney disease. The 1-year analyzed clinical parameters were similar in the three groups: death (EES=3.5%, PES=4.6%, SES=4.2%; p=0.94), MI (EES=3.5%, PES=6.3%, SES=2.1%; p=0.31), TLR (EES=9.8%, PES=9.5%, SES=5.7%; p=0.42), TVR (EES=14.3%, PES=11.1%, SES=11.3%; p=0.74), definite ST (EES=0.9%, PES=3.1%, SES=3.5%; p=0.38) and MACE (EES=14.0%, PES=15.4%, SES=10.5%; p=0.54). Male gender (hazard ratio=0.47; 95% confidence interval=0.25-0.88) and number of treated lesions (hazard ratio=1.47; 95% confidence interval=1.06-2.05) were found to be independent predictors of MACE; CONCLUSION: The results of the present study indicate that EES may provide similar safety and efficacy as first generation DES for the treatment of patients presenting with bare-metal in-stent restenosis.Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Powered by Koha