Coronary stenting: Single institution experience with the initial 100 cases using the Palmaz-Schatz stent (original) (raw)
Related papers
1994
One hundred and thirty-four consecutive patients undergoing elective coronary stenting were studied to assess the relative performance of Palmaz-Schatz (PS), Gianturco-Roubin (GR), and Wiktor (W) stents. Eighty-six percent of patients underwent follow-up angiography. Initial and follow-up angiograms were assessed by a central angiographic core laboratory. Attempts were made to place 81 Palmaz-Schatz (PS) stents, 21 Gianturco-Roubin (GR), and 32 Wiktor (W) stents. PS stents were less frequently successfully deployed (88% PS vs. 100% GR vs. 97% W; P = 0.03). The final percent stenosis was greater with the GR stent (32% GR vs. 14% PS vs. 19% W; P < 0.001). The restenosis rate was lower in the PS group (PS 48.2% vs. GR 66.7% and W 68.4Oh; P = 0.044). After accounting for the effect of prior restenosis (P = 0.005) and saphenous vein site (P = 0.006) in multivariate testing, lesion severity at follow-up was still less with the Palmaz-Schatz stent (P = 0.037).
American Journal of Cardiology, 2000
Stent restenosis constitutes a therapeutic challenge affecting an increasing number of patients. Conventional angioplasty and debulking techniques are currently used in these patients. However, the potential role of a second stent implantation in this setting (stenting the stent) remains unknown. Therefore, 65 consecutive patients (12 women, aged 62 ؎ 11 years) undergoing stent implantation (42 elective and 23 unplanned) for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (diffuse [>10 mm] in 39 [60%]) were studied. Angiographic success was obtained in all patients. Three patients developed hospital complications: 1 died from refractory heart failure and 2 suffered non-Q-wave myocardial infarctions. During follow-up (mean 17 ؎ 11 months) 1 patient died (noncardiac cause) and only 9 (14%) required target vessel revascularization. Kaplan-Meier event-free survival (freedom from death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) at 1 year was 84%. Using Cox analysis, patients with unstable symptoms, a short time to stent restenosis, nonelective stenting, and B2-C lesions tended to have poorer prognosis. After adjustment, nonelective stenting was associated (adjusted RR 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 10.3, p ؍ 0.09) with an adverse clinical outcome. On quantitative angiography (core lab) restenosis was found in 13 of 43 patients (30%) (75% of those eligible). Logistic regression analysis identify restenosis length (adjusted RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.14, p ؍ 0.04), and time to restenosis (adjusted RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.94, p ؍ 0.01) as the only independent predictors of recurrent restenosis. Thus, repeat coronary stenting is a safe and efficacious strategy for the treatment of patients with in-stent restenosis. Both elective and nonelective stenting provide excellent initial results. The long-term clinical and angiographic outcome of these patients is also favorable. ᮊ2000 by
Results of coronary stenting for restenosis
Journal of the American …, 1996
Results. Stent implantation was successful in 126 patients (98%). Four patients (3.1%) had complications (in two after successful stenting): death in one, emergency bypass surgery operation in two and subacute stent thrombosis in one. Stents were implanted with a final balloon size (mean ± ...
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 1999
Methods-The 30-day results and 6-month angiographic follow-up were analyzed in patients treated with coronary stents in 1996 and 1997. All patients underwent coronary stenting with high-pressure implantation (>12 atm) and antiplatelet drug regimen (aspirin plus ticlopidine). Results-During the study period, 1,390 coronary stents were implanted in 1,200 vessels of 1,126 patients; 477 patients were treated in the year 1996 and 649 in 1997. The number of percutaneous procedures performed using stents increased significantly in 1997 compared to 1996 (64 % vs 48%, p=0.0001). The 30-day results were similar in both years; the success and stent thrombosis rates were equal (97% and 0.8%, respectively). The occurrence of new Q wave MI (1.3% vs 1.1%, 1996 vs 1997, p=NS), emergency coronary bypass surgery (1% vs 0.6%, 1996 vs 1997, p=NS) and 30-day death rates (0.2% vs 0.5%, 1996 vs 1997, p=NS) were similar. The 6-month restenosis rate was 25% in 1996 and 27% in 1997 (p= NS); the target vessel revascularization rate was 15% in 1996 and 16% in 1997 (p = NS). Conclusions-Intracoronary stenting showed a high success rate and a low incidence of 30-day occurrence of new major coronary events in both periods, despite the greater angiographic complexity of the patients treated with in 1997. These adverse variables did not have a negative influence at the 6-month clinical and angiographic follow-up, with similar rates of restenosis and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rates.
Long-Term Clinical Follow-Up After Successful Repeat Percutaneous Intervention for Stent Restenosis
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1997
This study evaluated the long-term clinical outcome of successful repeat percutaneous intervention after in-stent restenosis. Background. Recurrence of symptoms and angiographic restenosis after stent implantation are observed in 15% to 35% of cases. Repeat percutaneous treatment for in-stent restenosis has been shown to be safe, with high immediate success, but little is known about the long-term clinical outcome. Methods. Clinical follow-up (minimum 9 months) was obtained in a consecutive series of 124 patients (127 vessels) presenting with stent restenosis who were successfully treated with repeat percutaneous intervention. Results. Clinical follow-up was obtained in all 124 patients at a mean [؎SD] of 27.4 ؎ 14.7 months (range 9 to 66); a stress test was available in 88 patients (71%). Recurrence of clinical events occurred in 25 patients (20%) and included death from any cause in 2 patients (2%), target vessel revascularization in 14 (11%), myocardial infarction in 1 (1%) and positive stress test results or recurrence of symptoms (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class I to IV) treated medically in 8 (6%). Cumulative event-free survival at 12 and 24 months was 86.2% and 80.7%, respectively. Significant predictive factors of recurrence of clinical events were repeat intervention in saphenous vein grafts, multivessel disease, low ejection fraction and a < ؊ 3-month interval between stent implantation and repeat intervention. Conclusions. In-stent balloon angioplasty for stent restenosis in native vessels seems to be an effective method in terms of a low long-term clinical event rate. (J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:186-92) ©1997 by the American College of Cardiology Coronary stents have been shown to reduce restenosis compared with balloon angioplasty (1,2), but restenosis still occurs in 15% to 35% of cases (1-4). The lowest restenosis rates were observed in focal lesions in large vessels (Ն3.0 mm) (1,2). However, the extension of coronary stent indications to more complex lesions or smaller vessels, or both, produces different, less favorable results (5). The use of local or systemic pharmacologic therapy (6,7), stent coating (8) and radioactive stents (9,10) may decrease the incidence of restenosis, but while awaiting these advances, adequate strategies for repeat treatment need to be investigated. Short-term results of intrastent restenosis treated with balloon angioplasty (11-14); additional stent implantation; rotational, extraction and directional atherectomy; and laser treatment have all been reported to be favorable (15-21), but data regarding the long-term clinical outcome are not available. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome of repeat percutaneous intervention, mainly balloon angioplasty, for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Methods Patients. From June 1991 to September 1995, 1,311 consecutive patients underwent intracoronary stenting at our center. Of this cohort, 130 consecutive patients with successful stent implantation returned with angiographic stent restenosis and underwent repeat percutaneous intervention. Patients who had repeat angioplasty for acute or subacute thrombotic stent occlusion within 1 month after stent implantation were not included in this series. In six patients the repeat procedure for in-stent restenosis was unsuccessful (residual diameter stenosis Ͼ30%), and they were excluded from the study. Of these six patients, two (2%) had elective bypass surgery, three (2%) were treated medically, and one (1%) had repeat intervention that was complicated by abrupt vessel closure that led to urgent bypass surgery and subsequent death due to left ventricular failure. Therefore, the study included 124 patients (127 vessels) who had successful percutaneous intervention for in-stent restenosis, and all 124 had clinical follow-up for at least 9 months. Stenting procedure. Before stent implantation in the original lesion, patients were treated with aspirin (325 to 500 mg), and a bolus of 10,000 U of heparin was given after sheath insertion, with repeat boluses of 5,000 U of heparin given as needed to maintain an activated clotting time Ն250 s. Different From the Columbus Clinic,
Stenting for in-stent restenosis: A long-term clinical follow-up
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 1999
We studied the feasibility, safety, and short-and long-term outcomes of treating coronary in-stent restenosis with primary restenting. Thirty-one patients (32 lesions) were treated. Eleven patients had adjunctive rotational atherectomy. Clinical follow-up was obtained in all 31 patients at a mean of 9.1 ؎ 5.5 months by direct phone contact with the patients, medical records, and subsequent hospitalization for recurrent symptoms and/or revascularization. There were no cardiac deaths or myocardial infarctions. In native vessels (26 patients), repeat target lesion revascularization was required in eight patients (31%); two other patients (7.7%) had angina and were treated medically. All vein graft lesions had recurrent restenosis. Significant predictors of recurrent clinical events were lesions in vein grafts, multivessel disease, and use of higher poststent deployment inflation pressures. Primary restenting for in-stent restenosis in native vessels is a safe approach with good short-term outcome. Recurrent restenosis remains a problem, as it does with other devices, particularly in vein graft lesions and in patients with multivessel disease. Restenting for in-stent restenosis should probably be used selectively. Cathet. Cardiovasc.
Clinical Cardiology, 2001
Over the last 4 years, several newer generation stents have become available, promising to change the scenery of coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with its attendant restenosis rate. The aim of this study was to review prospectively the results of a single operator adopting a uniform approach with approximately 0.5 mm stent oversizing and high-pressure (> or = 12-16 bar) deployment and compare them with conventional PTCA in a series of 244 consecutive patients. The study included 203 men and 41 women, aged 59 +/- 11 years, who presented with stable angina and/or positive exercise testing (n = 75), unstable angina (n = 161), or acute myocardial infarction (n = 8). Dilated vessels included the left anterior descending artery (n = 139), the right coronary artery (n = 86), the left circumflex artery (n = 47), the ramus branch (n = 4), or venous grafts (n = 2). Stents were implanted for dissection, suboptimal PTCA result, and electively. Two groups were compared: 83 patients who underwent balloon PTCA alone and 161 patients who also received stent(s). The two groups had similar demographics, age (58 +/- 10 vs. 59 +/- 11 years), initial vessel stenosis (92 +/- 7 vs. 93 +/- 6%), and left ventricular ejection fraction (51 +/- 9 vs. 51 +/- 8%). Procedural success was also similar (97.6 vs. 99.4%), but as expected the residual stenosis was much lower in the stent group (< or = 0 vs. 17%). The following stents were employed: J & J (n = 1), NIR (n = 117), ACS (n = 59), AVE (n = 9), Inflow GoldFlex (n = 9), Crossflex (n = 5), Wictor (n = 1), Jostent (n = 16), R stent (n = 9), Seaquence (n = 2) and Wallstent (n = 1). Single stents were used in 118 patients, two stents in 31 patients, three in 6 patients, and four in 6 patients. There was one in-hospital death at 3 days unrelated to the procedure. There were no events of subacute stent thrombosis; all patients in the stent group received combined therapy with aspirin and ticlopidine, the latter for 1 month. During 18 +/- 14 months, the clinical restenosis rate was significantly lower in the stent group (6.9%) than in the PTCA group (28.4%) (p = 0.001). In a series of 244 consecutive patients, newer generation stents and a consistent approach of stent oversizing and high-pressure stent deployment by a single operator resulted in high procedural success (99%), lack of stent thrombosis (0%), and a very low clinical restenosis rate (7%).
European Heart Journal, 1999
Background Primary intracoronary stenting reduces the rate of restenosis when compared with balloon angioplasty (PTCA) in selected patients. The strategy of PTCA followed by provisional stent placement for suboptimal PTCA results may be preferable to universal stenting but has not yet been tested in a randomized trial. Methods An attempt was made to obtain an optimal result with PTCA alone in 143 patients. Stenting was required in 50 patients (35%) for significant coronary dissection or PTCA failure. In the remaining 93 patients, the angiographic result was assessed immediately using on-line quantitative coronary angiography and classified as either optimal (<15% residual stenosis) or suboptimal (d15% residual stenosis). Sixteen patients (11%) had an optimal result from PTCA. The remaining 77 (54%) patients had a suboptimal result and were immediately randomized either to no further treatment or to the placement of a stent. The primary end-point was the rate of restenosis (>50% stenosis), assessed by quantitative coronary angiography, at 6 months. Results Angiographic follow-up was completed in 132 patients. Restenosis occurred in 53 (36,69)% of patients with a suboptimal result randomized to PTCA alone compared with 24 (12,41)% of patients randomized to stent (P=0•023). There was no significant difference in minimal luminal diameter at follow-up between the randomized groups. The rate of restenosis was 14 (2,43)% in patients with an optimal PTCA result and 14 (5,28)% in those that required stenting. Conclusions Optimal angiographic results following conventional PTCA are rare and the restenosis rate following suboptimal results is high. The strategy of stenting suboptimal results is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of stenosis.