BACKGROUND: Treatment of lesions located in saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) is associated with increased procedural risk and a high rate of restenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized, multicenter trial to evaluate the usefulness of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stent compared with a bare stainless steel (SS) stent for prevention of restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing SVG treatment. The primary end point was angiographic restenosis at 6 months. Secondary end points were 30-day and 6-month MACE rates, defined as the cumulative of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization. Between September 1999 and January 2002, 301 patients with SVG lesions were randomized to either the PTFE-covered JoStent coronary stent graft (PTFE group, n=156) or the SS JoFlex stent (control group, n=145). Angiographic and procedural success rates were similar between the 2 groups (97.4% versus 97.9% and 87.3% versus 93.8%, respectively). The incidence of 30-day MACE was higher in the PTFE group (10.9% versus 4.1%, P=0.047) and was mainly attributed to MI (10.3% versus 3.4%, P=0.037). The primary end point, the restenosis rate at 6-month follow-up, was similar between the 2 groups (24.2% versus 24.8%, P=0.237). Although the 6-month non-Q-wave MI rate was higher in the PTFE group (12.8% versus 4.1%, P=0.013), the cumulative MACE rate was not different (23.1% versus 15.9%, P=0.153). CONCLUSIONS: The study did not demonstrate a difference in restenosis rate and 6-month clinical outcome between the PTFE-covered stent and the SS stent for treatment of SVG lesions. However, a higher incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarctions was found in patients treated with the PTFE-covered stent.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Treatment of lesions located in saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) is associated with increased procedural risk and a high rate of restenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized, multicenter trial to evaluate the usefulness of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stent compared with a bare stainless steel (SS) stent for prevention of restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing SVG treatment. The primary end point was angiographic restenosis at 6 months. Secondary end points were 30-day and 6-month MACE rates, defined as the cumulative of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization. Between September 1999 and January 2002, 301 patients with SVG lesions were randomized to either the PTFE-covered JoStent coronary stent graft (PTFE group, n=156) or the SS JoFlex stent (control group, n=145). Angiographic and procedural success rates were similar between the 2 groups (97.4% versus 97.9% and 87.3% versus 93.8%, respectively). The incidence of 30-day MACE was higher in the PTFE group (10.9% versus 4.1%, P=0.047) and was mainly attributed to MI (10.3% versus 3.4%, P=0.037). The primary end point, the restenosis rate at 6-month follow-up, was similar between the 2 groups (24.2% versus 24.8%, P=0.237). Although the 6-month non-Q-wave MI rate was higher in the PTFE group (12.8% versus 4.1%, P=0.013), the cumulative MACE rate was not different (23.1% versus 15.9%, P=0.153). CONCLUSIONS: The study did not demonstrate a difference in restenosis rate and 6-month clinical outcome between the PTFE-covered stent and the SS stent for treatment of SVG lesions. However, a higher incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarctions was found in patients treated with the PTFE-covered stent.
Authors: Roberta Serdoz; Michele Pighi; Nikolaos V Konstantinidis; Ismail Dogu Kilic; Sara Abou-Sherif; Carlo Di Mario Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 5.113