OBJECTIVE: Although drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is the primary treatment modality for bare-metal stent (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR), little is known about the efficacy and safety profile of DES in the treatment of DES-ISR. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes following DES treatment for BMS-ISR and DES-ISR. METHODS: Rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were compared in 97 consecutive patients who underwent DES implantation for the treatment of ISR (56 BMS-ISR and 41 DES-ISR) from January 2004 to December 2008. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were comparable, except that the DES used in the BMS-ISR group was longer and had a larger diameter. The length of follow-up was (28.60+/-1.96) and (20.34+/-1.54) months for the BMS-ISR and DES-ISR groups, respectively. One patient (1.8%) experienced non-cardiac mortality and one (1.8%) had target-vessel revascularization (TVR) in the BMS-ISR group. In the DES-ISR group, three patients (7.3%) died of sudden death with a documented acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and three suffered TVR (7.3%). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that cumulative survival probability and MACE-free probability were both significantly lower for the DES-ISR group (log rank test P=0.047 and P=0.005, respectively). In Cox regression analysis, DES-ISR remained an independent predictor for future MACE occurrence after adjustment for other factors (compared with BMS-ISR, risk ratio (RR)=8.743, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54-49.54, P=0.014). Switching to a different type of DES to treat DES-ISR did not improve the prognosis. CONCLUSION: DES-ISR patients had a poorer prognosis than BMS-ISR patients after DES therapy.
OBJECTIVE: Although drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is the primary treatment modality for bare-metal stent (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR), little is known about the efficacy and safety profile of DES in the treatment of DES-ISR. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes following DES treatment for BMS-ISR and DES-ISR. METHODS: Rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were compared in 97 consecutive patients who underwent DES implantation for the treatment of ISR (56 BMS-ISR and 41 DES-ISR) from January 2004 to December 2008. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were comparable, except that the DES used in the BMS-ISR group was longer and had a larger diameter. The length of follow-up was (28.60+/-1.96) and (20.34+/-1.54) months for the BMS-ISR and DES-ISR groups, respectively. One patient (1.8%) experienced non-cardiac mortality and one (1.8%) had target-vessel revascularization (TVR) in the BMS-ISR group. In the DES-ISR group, three patients (7.3%) died of sudden death with a documented acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and three suffered TVR (7.3%). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that cumulative survival probability and MACE-free probability were both significantly lower for the DES-ISR group (log rank test P=0.047 and P=0.005, respectively). In Cox regression analysis, DES-ISR remained an independent predictor for future MACE occurrence after adjustment for other factors (compared with BMS-ISR, risk ratio (RR)=8.743, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54-49.54, P=0.014). Switching to a different type of DES to treat DES-ISR did not improve the prognosis. CONCLUSION:DES-ISRpatients had a poorer prognosis than BMS-ISR patients after DES therapy.
Authors: R Hoffmann; G S Mintz; G R Dussaillant; J J Popma; A D Pichard; L F Satler; K M Kent; J Griffin; M B Leon Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-09-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R Mehran; G Dangas; A S Abizaid; G S Mintz; A J Lansky; L F Satler; A D Pichard; K M Kent; G W Stone; M B Leon Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-11-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J E Sousa; M A Costa; A C Abizaid; B J Rensing; A S Abizaid; L F Tanajura; K Kozuma; G Van Langenhove; A G Sousa; R Falotico; J Jaeger; J J Popma; P W Serruys Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-10-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: G R Dussaillant; G S Mintz; A D Pichard; K M Kent; L F Satler; J J Popma; S C Wong; M B Leon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Muzaffer Degertekin; Evelyn Regar; Kengo Tanabe; Pieter C Smits; Willem J van der Giessen; Stephan G Carlier; Pim de Feyter; Jeroen Vos; David P Foley; Jurgen M R Ligthart; Jeffrey J Popma; Patrick W Serruys Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hans-Peter Bestehorn; Franz-Josef Neumann; Heinz Joachim Büttner; Peter Betz; Peter Stürzenhofecker; Eberhard von Hodenberg; Antoine Verdun; Laszlo Levai; Jean Pierre Monassier; Helmut Roskamm Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-06-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J Eduardo Sousa; Marco A Costa; Alexandre Abizaid; Amanda G M R Sousa; Fausto Feres; Luiz A Mattos; Marinella Centemero; Galo Maldonado; Andrea S Abizaid; Ibraim Pinto; Robert Falotico; Judith Jaeger; Jeffrey J Popma; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: F Saia; P A Lemos; C A Arampatzis; A Hoye; M Degertekin; K Tanabe; G Sianos; P C Smits; W J van der Giessen; P J de Feyter; R T van Domburg; P W Serruys Journal: Heart Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Jeffrey W Moses; Martin B Leon; Jeffrey J Popma; Peter J Fitzgerald; David R Holmes; Charles O'Shaughnessy; Ronald P Caputo; Dean J Kereiakes; David O Williams; Paul S Teirstein; Judith L Jaeger; Richard E Kuntz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245