BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have been demonstrated to reduce restenosis. However, there have been few studies evaluating the impact of renal insufficiency on the angiographic as well as clinical outcomes after SES implantation. METHODS: This study was composed of 304 consecutive patients having 361 lesions who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with SES. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to renal function (group 1 [n = 204]; creatinine clearance (Ccr) > or = 60 ml/min, group 2 [n = 69]; Ccr < 60 ml/min, group 3 [n = 31]; hemodialysis). Clinical and angiographic follow-up were evaluated at 8 months. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up was obtained in all patients and angiographic follow-up was obtained in 283 patients (93.1%). Patients in group 3 showed a higher incidence of previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and there were more female gender, hypertensive, and less hyperlipidemia in this group. Late lumen loss at 8 months was significantly different among the 3 groups (group 1; 0.16 +/- 0.46 mm, group 2; 0.44 +/- 0.62 mm, group 3; 0.81 +/- 0.88 mm, P < 0.0001). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were documented in 22 patients (10.8%) in group 1, 13 patients (18.8%) in group 2, and 12 patients (38.7%) in group 3, respectively (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Neointimal growth following SES implantation is more pronounced in patients with renal insufficiency, especially those undergoing dialysis, compared with patients with normal renal function. Regardless of the beneficial effect of SES, the increased risk of MACE mainly due to high incidence of target vessel revascularization in the subgroup of patients with renal insufficiency should be taken into account. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND:Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have been demonstrated to reduce restenosis. However, there have been few studies evaluating the impact of renal insufficiency on the angiographic as well as clinical outcomes after SES implantation. METHODS: This study was composed of 304 consecutive patients having 361 lesions who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with SES. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to renal function (group 1 [n = 204]; creatinine clearance (Ccr) > or = 60 ml/min, group 2 [n = 69]; Ccr < 60 ml/min, group 3 [n = 31]; hemodialysis). Clinical and angiographic follow-up were evaluated at 8 months. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up was obtained in all patients and angiographic follow-up was obtained in 283 patients (93.1%). Patients in group 3 showed a higher incidence of previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and there were more female gender, hypertensive, and less hyperlipidemia in this group. Late lumen loss at 8 months was significantly different among the 3 groups (group 1; 0.16 +/- 0.46 mm, group 2; 0.44 +/- 0.62 mm, group 3; 0.81 +/- 0.88 mm, P < 0.0001). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were documented in 22 patients (10.8%) in group 1, 13 patients (18.8%) in group 2, and 12 patients (38.7%) in group 3, respectively (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Neointimal growth following SES implantation is more pronounced in patients with renal insufficiency, especially those undergoing dialysis, compared with patients with normal renal function. Regardless of the beneficial effect of SES, the increased risk of MACE mainly due to high incidence of target vessel revascularization in the subgroup of patients with renal insufficiency should be taken into account. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.