Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of Rapamycin-Eluting Vertebral Stents in Patients With Symptomatic Extracranial Vertebral Artery Stenosis.

ABSTRACT: Background and Purpose: Drug-eluting stents generally have superior performance to bare metal stents in the treatment of vertebral artery stenosis (VAS). This prospective, multicenter, and single-arm clinical trial was initiated to assess in-stent restenosis (ISR) and midterm outcome after rapamycin-eluting stent placement in patients with symptomatic extracranial VAS. Methods: The subjects underwent angiographic follow-up at 6 months and final clinical follow-up at 12 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was ISR at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included technical success, target lesion-related transient ischemic attack (TIA), stroke, or death, and all-cause TIA, stroke, or death during the 12-month follow-up period. Results: A total of 104 stents were implanted in the 101 patients and 83 patients (82.2%) completed angiographic follow-up at 6 months. The technical success rate was 86.1% (87/101); mean in-stent stenosis rate was 25.1 ± 17.1% and ISR rate was 5.9% (95% CI: 0.8-10.9%). All the patients with ISR were completely asymptomatic and no stent fractures were observed during angiographic follow-up. At the 12-month clinical follow-up, target lesion-related TIA, stroke, or death had occurred in two (2.0%) patients and all-cause TIA, stroke, or death had occurred in six (6.1%) patients. Conclusion: The placement of rapamycin-eluting stents in patients with symptomatic extracranial VAS yields favorable ISR results and showed a trend of favorable safety outcomes including low rates of perioperative complications and late stroke. However, further study is needed to establish the long-term clinical benefits of this stent in the treatment of VA disease.

SUBMITTER: Ma G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8662782 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Stroke is currently the second-leading cause of death just behind ischaemic heart disease. Drug therapy is currently the standard of care for patients with symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis (sICAS). Stenting is an important treatment for the prevention and treatment of ischemic stroke. It has been suggested that vertebral artery stenting might reduce this risk, but operation-related complications limit the application of stenting in the treatment of ischemic stroke. The differences in the safety and efficacy of stenting combined with drugs and drugs alone in the treatment of sICAS are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of both treatment modalities on the prognosis of patients with sICAS through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM, DUXIU) and English databases (Pubmed, Embase, Ovid_medline, Cochrane library, Web of science)were searched to identify all studies describing sICAS. The “Risk of Bias Assessment” tool and the “Jadad Scale” provided by the Cochrane Collaboration were used to evaluate the risk of bias and quality of the collected literature. The risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined using Stata statistical software version 14.0. Results: A total of 11 studies were included, comprising a total of 1,915 patients. The combined results of the study showed no significant difference between the incidence of transient cerebral ischemia (TIA)and stroke in patients with sICAS treated with drugs in combination with stents versus drugs alone. The incidence of death or stroke, cerebral haemorrhage, disabling stroke or death was significantly higher in patients receiving stent-combined drug therapy versus drug therapy alone for sICAS. Conclusion: Studies suggest that stenting combined with medication for patients with sICAS may increase the incidence of death or stroke, cerebral haemorrhage, stroke or death, but has no significant effect on the incidence of TIA and stroke. The studies report inadequate and conflicting data and therefore the safety and efficacy of stenting for sICAS should be interpreted with caution. Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022377090, identifier CRD42022377090

Project description:ObjectivesThe authors sought to evaluate the final 5-year safety and effectiveness of the platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (PtCr-EES) in the randomized trial, as well as in 2 single-arm substudies that evaluated PtCr-EES in small vessels (diameter <2.5 mm; n = 94) and long lesions (24 to 34 mm; n = 102).BackgroundIn the multicenter, randomized PLATINUM (PLATINUM Clinical Trial to Assess the PROMUS Element Stent System for Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions), the PtCr-EES was noninferior to the cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-EES) at 1 year in 1,530 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.MethodsPatients with 1 or 2 de novo coronary artery lesions (reference vessel diameter 2.50 to 4.25 mm, length ≤24 mm) were randomized 1:1 to PtCr-EES versus CoCr-EES. All patients in the substudies received PtCr-EES. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of target vessel-related cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization.ResultsIn the randomized trial, the 5-year TLF rate was 9.1% for PtCr-EES and 9.3% for CoCr-EES (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.97; p = 0.87). Landmark analysis demonstrated similar TLF rates from discharge to 1 year (HR: 1.12; p = 0.70) and from 1 to 5 years (HR: 0.90; p = 0.63). There were no significant differences in the rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion or vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis. PtCr-EES had 5-year TLF rates of 7.0% in small vessels and 13.6% in long lesions.ConclusionsPtCr-EES demonstrated comparable safety and effectiveness to CoCr-EES through 5 years of follow-up, with low rates of stent thrombosis and other adverse events. The 5-year event rates were also acceptable in patients with small vessels and long lesions treated with PtCr-EES. (The PLATINUM Clinical Trial to Assess the PROMUS Element Stent System for Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions [PLATINUM]; NCT00823212; The PLATINUM Clinical Trial to Assess the PROMUS Element Stent System for Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions in Small Vessels [PLATINUM SV]; NCT01498692; The PLATINUM Clinical Trial to Assess the PROMUS Element Stent System for Treatment of Long De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions [PLATINUM LL]; NCT01500434).

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents with those of bare metal stents and durable polymer drug eluting stents.DesignMixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of 258,544 patient years of follow-up from randomized trials.Data sources and study selectionPubMed, Embase, and Central were searched for randomized trials comparing any of the Food and Drug Administration approved durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting, platinum chromium everolimus eluting, zotarolimus eluting-Endeavor, and zotarolimus eluting-Resolute) or biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents, with each other or against bare metal stents.OutcomesLong term efficacy (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis). Landmark analysis at more than one year was evaluated to assess the potential late benefit of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents.ResultsFrom 126 randomized trials and 258,544 patient years of follow-up, for long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization), biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.66, 95% credibility interval 0.57 to 0.78) and zotarolimus eluting stent-Endeavor (0.69, 0.56 to 0.84) but not to newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (for example: 1.03, 0.89 to 1.21 versus cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents). Similarly, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.61, 0.37 to 0.89) but inferior to cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (2.04, 1.27 to 3.35) for long term safety (definite stent thrombosis). In the landmark analysis after one year, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to sirolimus eluting stents for definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.29, 0.10 to 0.82) but were associated with increased mortality compared with cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (1.52, 1.02 to 2.22). Overall, among all stent types, the newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (zotarolimus eluting stent-Resolute, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, and platinum chromium everolimus eluting stents) were the most efficacious (lowest target vessel revascularization rate) stents, and cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents were the safest with significant reductions in definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.35, 0.21 to 0.53), myocardial infarction (0.65, 0.55 to 0.75), and death (0.72, 0.58 to 0.90) compared with bare metal stents.ConclusionsBiodegradable polymer drug eluting stents are superior to first generation durable polymer drug eluting stents but not to newer generation durable polymer stents in reducing target vessel revascularization. Newer generation durable polymer stents, and especially cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, have the best combination of efficacy and safety. The utility of biodegradable polymer stents in the context of excellent clinical outcomes with newer generation durable polymer stents needs to be proven.

Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of Rapamycin-Eluting Vertebral Stents in Patients With Symptomatic Extracranial Vertebral Artery Stenosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets