Why the study?
Does an abciximab-coated stent reduce late lumen loss and major adverse cardiac events compared to a bare metal stent in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI?
Does an abciximab-coated stent reduce late lumen loss and major adverse cardiac events compared to a bare metal stent in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI?
Abciximab-coated stents significantly reduced angiographic late lumen loss compared to bare metal stents in patients undergoing elective PCI, demonstrating initial safety and feasibility.
Abciximab-coated stents may reduce restenosis risk in elective PCI; extends RCT evidence for antibody-coated stent technology.
BACKGROUND: Previously, the inhibition of coronary restenosis with Abciximab (ReoPro)-coated stent in a porcine model was reported. ReoPro inhibits platelet aggregation, the proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells and the inflammatory reaction. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was performed to compare two types of stent for revascularization in the native coronary artery. The primary effective end points were major adverse coronary events (MACE): cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and restenosis at the 6-month clinical and angiographic follow-ups. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five patients were enrolled between August 2001 and June 2003. The mean ages (56.0 +/- 10.0 vs. 56.9 +/- 10.8 years), baseline diameter of stenosis and minimal luminal diameter were no different between the two groups. There was one myocardial infarction and revascularization during the hospital stay in control stent group. During the clinical follow-up there were two myocardial infarctions in control group. Follow-up coronary angiograms were performed in 62.3% (48/77) and 65.4% (51/78) of the coated and control groups, respectively. The diameter of stenosis and late loss were significantly less in the ReoPro-coated stent group compared with the controls (16.4 +/- 5.8% vs. 34.3 +/- 6.1%, p = 0.009; and 0.33 +/- 0.28 mm vs. 0.88 +/- 0.41 mm; p = 0.002). The restenosis and TVR rates of the ReoPro-coated stent were relatively lower compared with the control stent [14.6% (7/48) vs. 29.4% (15/51), p = 0.062; and 9.2% (7/76) vs. 14.7% (11/75); p = 0.327]. CONCLUSION: A ReoPro-coated stent is safe, and may be effective in the prevention of coronary restenosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: