A Yock1, J Michael Isbill, Spencer B King. 1. Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305-6019, USA. Cynthia.Yock@stanford.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown that drug-eluting stents (DES) substantially reduce in-stent restenosis compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). HYPOTHESIS: Revascularization event rates related to BMS restenosis may be higher in the trials setting than in real-world experience, calling into question the extent of benefit possible with widespread DES use in regular practice. METHODS: Between December 1998 and March 2003, 17,102 patients with BMS registered in the Goodroe Healthcare Solutions Data Warehouse met the inclusion criteria for this retrospective study of catheterization laboratory data. We examined the database for evidence of diagnostic angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) readmission within 1 year after stenting. RESULTS: Repeat PCI was documented for 2070 patients, and 232 were referred for coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG)-in sum, 13.5% of the cohort. Stented region revascularization was observed in 8.4%: 1350 patients underwent subsequent PCI, and 84 of the patients referred for CABG had in-stent lesion recurrence. Only 1207 (7.1%) patients required stent-related PCI after 30 days, the time frame consistent with restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: In this "real-world" series, reintervention of a stented region after the first follow-up month was documented in fewer than 8% of patients in a large cohort that had received BMS. The rate of clinical events potentially related to BMS in-stent restenosis in this large, unselected patient population is substantially lower than that in the control arms of some DES trials. The incremental benefit of widespread conversion from BMS to DES may be smaller in some patient populations than is suggested by the results of those trials.
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown that drug-eluting stents (DES) substantially reduce in-stent restenosis compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). HYPOTHESIS: Revascularization event rates related to BMS restenosis may be higher in the trials setting than in real-world experience, calling into question the extent of benefit possible with widespread DES use in regular practice. METHODS: Between December 1998 and March 2003, 17,102 patients with BMS registered in the Goodroe Healthcare Solutions Data Warehouse met the inclusion criteria for this retrospective study of catheterization laboratory data. We examined the database for evidence of diagnostic angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) readmission within 1 year after stenting. RESULTS:Repeat PCI was documented for 2070 patients, and 232 were referred for coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG)-in sum, 13.5% of the cohort. Stented region revascularization was observed in 8.4%: 1350 patients underwent subsequent PCI, and 84 of the patients referred for CABG had in-stent lesion recurrence. Only 1207 (7.1%) patients required stent-related PCI after 30 days, the time frame consistent with restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: In this "real-world" series, reintervention of a stented region after the first follow-up month was documented in fewer than 8% of patients in a large cohort that had received BMS. The rate of clinical events potentially related to BMS in-stent restenosis in this large, unselected patient population is substantially lower than that in the control arms of some DES trials. The incremental benefit of widespread conversion from BMS to DES may be smaller in some patient populations than is suggested by the results of those trials.
Authors: P J Scanlon; D P Faxon; A M Audet; B Carabello; G J Dehmer; K A Eagle; R D Legako; D F Leon; J A Murray; S E Nissen; C J Pepine; R M Watson; J L Ritchie; R J Gibbons; M D Cheitlin; T J Gardner; A Garson; R O Russell; T J Ryan; S C Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Donald E Cutlip; Amit G Chhabra; Donald S Baim; Manish S Chauhan; Sachin Marulkar; Joseph Massaro; Ameet Bakhai; David J Cohen; Richard E Kuntz; Kalon K L Ho Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-08-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Eugène P McFadden; Eugenio Stabile; Evelyn Regar; Edouard Cheneau; Andrew T L Ong; Timothy Kinnaird; William O Suddath; Neil J Weissman; Rebecca Torguson; Kenneth M Kent; August D Pichard; Lowell F Satler; Ron Waksman; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Oct 23-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mohan N Babapulle; Lawrence Joseph; Patrick Bélisle; James M Brophy; Mark J Eisenberg Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Aug 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephen G Ellis; Christopher T Bajzer; Deepak L Bhatt; Sorin J Brener; Patrick L Whitlow; A Michael Lincoff; David J Moliterno; Russell E Raymond; E Murat Tuzcu; Irving Franco; Sandra Dushman-Ellis; Katherine J Lander; Jakob P Schneider; Eric J Topol Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: David J Cohen; Ameet Bakhai; Chunxue Shi; Louise Githiora; Tara Lavelle; Ronna H Berezin; Martin B Leon; Jeffrey W Moses; Joseph P Carrozza; James P Zidar; Richard E Kuntz Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-07-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Willem R P Agema; Pascalle S Monraats; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Robbert J De Winter; René A Tio; Pieter A F M Doevendans; Johannes Waltenberger; Moniek P M De Maat; Rune R Frants; Douwe E Atsma; Arnoud Van Der Laarse; Ernst E Van Der Wall; J Wouter Jukema Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 29.983