OBJECTIVE: To define the clinical and angiographic follow-up results after implantation of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in stenotic saphenous vein grafts (SVGs). DESIGN: Prospective multicentre study. Comparison with a control group. METHODS: 60 consecutive patients with 65 lesions located in 65 SVGs (mean (SD) age of vein grafts 11.3 (5.7) years) treated with PES (V-Flex Plus, 2.7 microg/mm(2) paclitaxel, Cook) and 60 patients with 60 SVG lesions treated with bare metal stent (BMS) were included. Lesions had to be <20 mm in length and in grafts of 2.75-3.5 mm diameter. The 6 month angiographic follow-up was obtained on 51 lesions (79%) of the PES group and on 51 lesions (85%) of the BMS group. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable between both groups. At angiographic follow-up, three vein grafts in the PES group and five vein grafts in the BMS group were occluded. In-stent late lumen loss was lower in PES than in BMS (0.61 (0.81) vs 1.06 (0.72) mm, respectively; p = 0.021). In-stent binary restenosis rates were 12% vs 33%, respectively, (p = 0.012). Linear regression analysis showed BMS to be the only factor with an effect on late lumen loss (p = 0.011). Target-vessel failure rates were 18% in the PES group and 41% in the BMS group (p = 0.019), whereas major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates at 180 days were 15% and 37%, respectively (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of non-polymer-based PES in SVG lesions is associated with a lower late lumen loss and restenosis rate than those of BMS. There remains a substantial target-vessel failure rate and MACE rate even at 6 months owing to graft occlusion or new lesions in the graft.
OBJECTIVE: To define the clinical and angiographic follow-up results after implantation of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in stenotic saphenous vein grafts (SVGs). DESIGN: Prospective multicentre study. Comparison with a control group. METHODS: 60 consecutive patients with 65 lesions located in 65 SVGs (mean (SD) age of vein grafts 11.3 (5.7) years) treated with PES (V-Flex Plus, 2.7 microg/mm(2) paclitaxel, Cook) and 60 patients with 60 SVG lesions treated with bare metal stent (BMS) were included. Lesions had to be <20 mm in length and in grafts of 2.75-3.5 mm diameter. The 6 month angiographic follow-up was obtained on 51 lesions (79%) of the PES group and on 51 lesions (85%) of the BMS group. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable between both groups. At angiographic follow-up, three vein grafts in the PES group and five vein grafts in the BMS group were occluded. In-stent late lumen loss was lower in PES than in BMS (0.61 (0.81) vs 1.06 (0.72) mm, respectively; p = 0.021). In-stent binary restenosis rates were 12% vs 33%, respectively, (p = 0.012). Linear regression analysis showed BMS to be the only factor with an effect on late lumen loss (p = 0.011). Target-vessel failure rates were 18% in the PES group and 41% in the BMS group (p = 0.019), whereas major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates at 180 days were 15% and 37%, respectively (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of non-polymer-based PES in SVG lesions is associated with a lower late lumen loss and restenosis rate than those of BMS. There remains a substantial target-vessel failure rate and MACE rate even at 6 months owing to graft occlusion or new lesions in the graft.
Authors: Donald S Baim; Dennis Wahr; Barry George; Martin B Leon; Joel Greenberg; Donald E Cutlip; Unsal Kaya; Jeffrey J Popma; Kalon K L Ho; Richard E Kuntz Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: William W Chu; Seung-Woon Rha; Pramod K Kuchulakanti; Edouard Cheneau; Rebecca Torguson; Ellen Pinnow; Jana Alexieva-Fournadjiev; Augusto D Pichard; Lowell F Satler; Kenneth M Kent; Joseph Lindsay; Ron Waksman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-11-02 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Keiichi Tsuchida; Andrew T L Ong; Jiro Aoki; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Gastón A Rodriguez-Granillo; Marco Valgimigli; Georgios Sianos; Evelyn Regar; Eugène P McFadden; Willem J van der Giessen; Pim J de Feyter; Peter P T de Jaegere; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-08-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Seung-Jung Park; Won Heum Shim; David S Ho; Albert E Raizner; Seong-Wook Park; Myeong-Ki Hong; Cheol Whan Lee; Donghoon Choi; Yangsoo Jang; Ricky Lam; Neil J Weissman; Gary S Mintz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M P Savage; J S Douglas; D L Fischman; C J Pepine; S B King; J A Werner; S R Bailey; P A Overlie; S H Fenton; J A Brinker; M B Leon; S Goldberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-09-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexandra J Lansky; Ricardo A Costa; Gary S Mintz; Yoshihiro Tsuchiya; Mark Midei; David A Cox; Charles O'Shaughnessy; Robert A Applegate; Louis A Cannon; Michael Mooney; Anthony Farah; Mark A Tannenbaum; Steven Yakubov; Dean J Kereiakes; S Chiu Wong; Barry Kaplan; Ecaterina Cristea; Gregg W Stone; Martin B Leon; William D Knopf; William W O'Neill Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-04-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gregg W Stone; Stephen G Ellis; David A Cox; James Hermiller; Charles O'Shaughnessy; James Tift Mann; Mark Turco; Ronald Caputo; Patrick Bergin; Joel Greenberg; Jeffrey J Popma; Mary E Russell Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-01-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marie-Claude Morice; Patrick W Serruys; J Eduardo Sousa; Jean Fajadet; Ernesto Ban Hayashi; Marco Perin; Antonio Colombo; G Schuler; Paul Barragan; Giulio Guagliumi; Ferenc Molnàr; Robert Falotico Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pascal Meier; Emmanouil S Brilakis; Roberto Corti; Guido Knapp; Mehdi H Shishehbor; Hitinder S Gurm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mohammad Alidoosti; Seyed Kianoosh Hosseini; Ahmad Sharafi; Ebrahim Nematipour; Mojtaba Salarifar; Hamidreza Poorhoseini; Seyed Ebrahim Kassaian; Ali Mohammad Haji Zeinali; Alireza Amirzadegan; Mohammad Sadeghian; Masoumeh Lotfi-Tokalday Journal: J Tehran Heart Cent Date: 2011-08-31