Dataset Information

Validation and comparison of drug eluting stent to bare metal stent for restenosis rates following vertebral artery ostium stenting: A single-center real-world study.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

While drug-eluting stents (DES) have been widely applicated in coronary stenosis, uncertainty persists concerning the relative performance and clinical benefit in patients undergoing vertebral artery stenting when compared with a bare metal stent (BMS). We sought to compare in-stent restenosis (ISR) rates of DES and BMS in the treatment of vertebral artery ostium (VAO) stenosis.

Materials and methods

This study analyzed a single-center prospective cohort. Over 1.5-year period (January 2014-June 2015), 137 consecutive patients underwent VAO stenting involving deployment of 76 DES and 74 BMS. Patient demographics, comorbidities, stenosis severity, stent diameters and lengths, periprocedural complications, imaging and duplex ultrasonography follow-up and recurrent symptoms were assessed.

Results

Technical success was achieved in all patients. Mean VAO stenosis at presentation were 82.4 ± 7.2% in the DES group and 83.3 ± 7.5% in the BMS group and were reduced to 12.5 ± 4.5% and 11.3 ± 4.0%. Mean stent diameter was 3.53 ± 0.40 mm in DES and 5.05 ± 0.40 mm in BMS (p < 0.0001). Mean follow-up was 12.3 months for DES and 11.7 months for BMS. The use of DES was associated with significant lower ISR rates compared with BMS (18.4% vs. 31.1%; OR = 2.628, p = 0.021). Recurrent symptoms rates were similar in DES vs. BMS (2.6% vs 2.7%, p = 0.680). Stent type and stent diameter were independent risk factors for ISR (P = 0.026).

Conclusion

Our results suggest superior efficacy of deploying DES for the treatment of VAO stenosis with lower ISR rates as compared to BMS, but do not support significant differences in periprocedural risk and recurrent symptoms rate.

SUBMITTER: Li L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7645189 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess patients' perspective about factors associated with stent choice.BackgroundDrug 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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionMost 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 registrationDeveloping 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.

Project description:Given the limited salvage options for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DES), our high-volume cardiac catheterization laboratory has been performing intracoronary brachytherapy (ICBT) in patients with recurrent ISR of DES. This study analyzes their baseline characteristics and assesses the safety/toxicity of ICBT in this high-risk population.A retrospective analysis of patients treated with ICBT between September 2012 and December 2014 was performed. Patients with ISR twice in a single location were eligible. Procedural complications included vessel dissection, perforation, tamponade, slow/absent blood flow, and vessel closure. Postprocedural events included myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, congestive heart failure, stroke, bleeding, thrombosis, embolism, dissection, dialysis, or death occurring within 72 hours. A control group of patients with 2 episodes of ISR at 1 location who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention without ICBT was identified. Unpaired t tests and χ2 tests were used to compare the groups.There were 134 (78%) patients in the ICBT group with 141 treated lesions and 37 (22%) patients in the control group. There was a high prevalence of hyperlipidemia (>95%), hypertension (>95%), and diabetes (>50%) in both groups. The groups were well-balanced with respect to age, sex, and pre-existing medical conditions, with the exception of previous coronary artery bypass graft being more common the ICBT group. Procedural complication rates were low in the control and ICBT groups (0% vs 4.5%, P = .190). Postprocedural event rates were low (<5%) in both groups. Readmission rate at 30 days was 3.7% in the ICBT group and 5.4% in the control group (P = .649).This is the largest recent known series looking at ICBT for recurrent ISR of DES. ICBT is a safe treatment option with similarly low rates (<5%) of procedural and postprocedural complications compared with percutaneous coronary intervention alone. This study establishes the safety of ICBT in a high-risk patient cohort.

Project description:AimsUnderstanding endothelial cell repopulation post-stenting and how this modulates in-stent restenosis is critical to improving arterial healing post-stenting. We used a novel murine stent model to investigate endothelial cell repopulation post-stenting, comparing the response of drug-eluting stents with a primary genetic modification to improve endothelial cell function.Methods and resultsEndothelial cell repopulation was assessed en face in stented arteries in ApoE(-/-) mice with endothelial-specific LacZ expression. Stent deployment resulted in near-complete denudation of endothelium, but was followed by endothelial cell repopulation, by cells originating from both bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells and from the adjacent vasculature. Paclitaxel-eluting stents reduced neointima formation (0.423 ± 0.065 vs. 0.240 ± 0.040 mm(2), P = 0.038), but decreased endothelial cell repopulation (238 ± 17 vs. 154 ± 22 nuclei/mm(2), P = 0.018), despite complete strut coverage. To test the effects of selectively improving endothelial cell function, we used transgenic mice with endothelial-specific overexpression of GTP-cyclohydrolase 1 (GCH-Tg) as a model of enhanced endothelial cell function and increased NO production. GCH-Tg ApoE(-/-) mice had less neointima formation compared with ApoE(-/-) littermates (0.52 ± 0.08 vs. 0.26 ± 0.09 mm(2), P = 0.039). In contrast to paclitaxel-eluting stents, reduced neointima formation in GCH-Tg mice was accompanied by increased endothelial cell coverage (156 ± 17 vs. 209 ± 23 nuclei/mm(2), P = 0.043).ConclusionDrug-eluting stents reduce not only neointima formation but also endothelial cell repopulation, independent of strut coverage. In contrast, selective targeting of endothelial cell function is sufficient to improve endothelial cell repopulation and reduce neointima formation. Targeting endothelial cell function is a rational therapeutic strategy to improve vascular healing and decrease neointima formation after stenting.