Literature DB >> 28168845

Beyond restenosis: Patients' preference for drug eluting or bare metal stents.

Mohammed Qintar1,2, Adnan K Chhatriwalla1,2, Suzanne V Arnold1,2, Fengming Tang1, Donna M Buchanan1,2, Ali Shafiq1,2, Yashashwi Pokharel1,2, Dave deBronkart3, Javed M Ashraf2, John A Spertus1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess patients' perspective about factors associated with stent choice.
BACKGROUND: Drug eluting stents (DES) markedly reduce the risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but necessitate a longer duration of dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) as compared with bare metal stents (BMS). Thus, understanding patients' perspective about factors associated with stent choice is paramount.
METHODS: Patients undergoing angiography rated, on a 10-point scale, the importance (1 = not important, 10 = most important) of avoiding repeat revascularization and avoiding the following potential DAPT drawbacks: bleeding/bruising, more pills/day, medication costs and delaying elective surgery. The factor, or group of factors, that was rated highest by each patient was identified.
RESULTS: Among 311 patients, repeat revascularization was the single most important consideration to 14.4% of patients, while 20.6% considered avoiding one of the DAPT drawbacks as most important. Most patients (65%) considered avoiding at least one DAPT drawback as important as avoiding repeat revascularization. In no subgroup of patients did more than a quarter of patients prefer avoiding repeat revascularization above all other concerns. Among patients undergoing PCI, more than three quarters received a DES, regardless of their stated preferences (DES use among those most valuing DES benefits, avoiding DAPT drawbacks, or both equally were 78.7%, 86.2%, and 85.6%, respectively, P = 0.56).
CONCLUSION: Most patients reported that avoiding DAPT drawbacks was as important as avoiding repeat revascularization. Eliciting patient preferences regarding stent type can enhance shared decision-making and allow physicians to better tailor stent choice to patients' goals and values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Developing and Testing a Personalized Evidence-based Shared Decision-making Tool for Stent Selection (DECIDE-PCI). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02046902. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02046902
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dual anti-platelet therapy; patients’ preferences; percutaneous coronary intervention; shared decision-making

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28168845      PMCID: PMC5771426          DOI: 10.1002/ccd.26946

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1522-1946            Impact factor:   2.692


  18 in total

1.  Use of drug-eluting stents as a function of predicted benefit: clinical and economic implications of current practice.

Authors:  Amit P Amin; John A Spertus; David J Cohen; Adnan Chhatriwalla; Kevin F Kennedy; Katherine Vilain; Adam C Salisbury; Lakshmi Venkitachalam; Sue Min Lai; Laura Mauri; Sharon-Lise T Normand; John S Rumsfeld; John C Messenger; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2012-08-13

2.  Improving the process of informed consent for percutaneous coronary intervention: patient outcomes from the Patient Risk Information Services Manager (ePRISM) study.

Authors:  John A Spertus; Richard Bach; Charles Bethea; Adnan Chhatriwalla; Jeptha P Curtis; Elizabeth Gialde; Mayra Guerrero; Kensey Gosch; Philip G Jones; Aaron Kugelmass; Bradley M Leonard; Edward J McNulty; Marc Shelton; Henry H Ting; Carole Decker
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 4.749

Review 3.  Longer- Versus Shorter-Duration Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Frederick A Spencer; Manya Prasad; Per O Vandvik; Devin Chetan; Qi Zhou; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Predicting the restenosis benefit of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Robert W Yeh; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Robert E Wolf; Philip G Jones; Kalon K L Ho; David J Cohen; Donald E Cutlip; Laura Mauri; Aaron D Kugelmass; Amit P Amin; John A Spertus
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Nuisance bleeding with prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after acute myocardial infarction and its impact on health status.

Authors:  Amit P Amin; Alok Bachuwar; Kimberly J Reid; Adnan K Chhatriwalla; Adam C Salisbury; Robert W Yeh; Mikhail Kosiborod; Tracy Y Wang; Karen P Alexander; Kensey Gosch; David J Cohen; John A Spertus; Richard G Bach
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 24.094

6.  Ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with stable coronary artery disease--a study of prevalence, safety, and variation in use from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR).

Authors:  Ronald J Krone; Richard E Shaw; Lloyd W Klein; James C Blankenship; William S Weintraub
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Benefits and risks of long-term duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stenting: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Authors:  Marco Valgimigli; Seung-Jung Park; Hyo-Soo Kim; Kyung Woo Park; Duk-Woo Park; Pierluigi Tricoci; Giuseppe Ferrante
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 4.164

8.  A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease.

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

9.  Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery.

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

10.  Decision-making process reported by Medicare patients who had coronary artery stenting or surgery for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Floyd J Fowler; Patricia M Gallagher; Julie P W Bynum; Michael J Barry; F Leslie Lucas; Jonathan S Skinner
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  2 in total

1.  Developing and Testing a Personalized, Evidence-Based, Shared Decision-Making Tool for Stent Selection in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using a Pre-Post Study Design.

Authors:  Adnan K Chhatriwalla; Carole Decker; Elizabeth Gialde; Delwyn Catley; Kathy Goggin; Katie Jaschke; Philip Jones; Dave deBronkart; Tony Sun; John A Spertus
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2019-02

2.  European guidelines on chronic mesenteric ischaemia - joint United European Gastroenterology, European Association for Gastroenterology, Endoscopy and Nutrition, European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology, Netherlands Association of Hepatogastroenterologists, Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, and Dutch Mesenteric Ischemia Study group clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia.

Authors:  Luke G Terlouw; Adriaan Moelker; Jan Abrahamsen; Stefan Acosta; Olaf J Bakker; Iris Baumgartner; Louis Boyer; Olivier Corcos; Louisa Jd van Dijk; Mansur Duran; Robert H Geelkerken; Giulio Illuminati; Ralph W Jackson; Jussi M Kärkkäinen; Jeroen J Kolkman; Lars Lönn; Maria A Mazzei; Alexandre Nuzzo; Felice Pecoraro; Jan Raupach; Hence Jm Verhagen; Christoph J Zech; Desirée van Noord; Marco J Bruno
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 4.623

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.