PURPOSE: Stents coated with hypothrombogenic silicon carbide (a-SiC:H) exhibited low restenosis rates in the rabbit and in an observational study in humans. Thus, the clinical and angiographic outcome was assessed in a large multicenter study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four hundred and ninety-seven patients (63.4 +/- 9.8 years) were randomized to either receive the a-SiC:H-coated Tenax stent or the stainless steel Nir stent. Lesions (diameter > or = 2.8 mm, length < 20 mm) were covered with one single stent. RESULTS: Fifty-one of 497 (10.3%) patients were excluded for protocol violation. Three hundred and forty-two of 446 (76.7%) patients presented for scheduled angiographic follow-up after 4.7 +/- 1.2 months and 29 of 446 (6.5%) prematurely. In-hospital complications comprised two deaths (0.8%) (P > 0.99) and one (0.4%) (P > 0.99) CK-elevation in each group, target lesion revascularization in 5 of 250 (2%) of the Tenax and 4 of 244 (1.6%) of the Nir sample (P > 0.99), and subacute thrombosis in 2 of 250 (0.8%) of the Tenax patients (P = 0.5). In the Tenax/Nir patients mean percent diameter stenosis decreased from 82.3 +/- 9.1%/80.7 +/- 8.4% (P = 0.49) to 17.6 +/- 5.5%/17.6 +/- 5.5% (P = 0.99) postprocedure and increased to 34.5 +/- 21.5%/34.2 +/- 23.1% (P = 0.90) at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, there appears to be no advantage of the silicon carbide coated stent over a stainless steel stent after 4.7 +/- 1.2 months with regard to clinical and angiographic restenosis rates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Unverdorben et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: