Key result
High-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentration ≥2 mg/L at repeat presentation was a significant predictor of restenosis in stents <3 mm in diameter and >25 mm in length (OR 3.7).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to assess the time and possible predictors of restenosis after elective implantation of first- and second-generation coronary stents and bare metal stents in stable coronary artery disease.
Does stent type and hs-CRP level predict the incidence and time to coronary restenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Cohort (n=3,732)
No
Does stent type and hs-CRP level predict the incidence and time to coronary restenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Odds Ratio: 3.7 (95% CI 1.1–12.1)
p-value: p=<0.05
First- and second-generation drug-eluting stents show similar times to restenosis presentation (2-3 years), and elevated hs-CRP (≥2 mg/L) predicts restenosis in long, narrow stents.
BMS restenosis occurs earlier than DES; leaves open independent predictors and optimal surveillance pending prospective validation.
OBJECTIVE: Assess time and possible predictors of restenosis after the implantation of first- and second-generation coronary stents and bare metal stents (BMSs) in patients with stable coronary artery disease after elective coronary stenting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2010 to 2014, 3,732 (2,897 males, 60 [53; 68] years old) patients with stable exertional angina of functional class I-III underwent coronary stenting. From 2014 to 2017, 1,487 (1,173 males and 314 females) patients returned. Repeat coronary angiography was performed in 699 patients. RESULTS: A total of 644 first-generation stents, 5,321 second-generation stents, and 473 BMSs were implanted. During the control coronary angiography, contrasting was repeated for 193 first-generation stents, 899 second-generation stents, and 77 BMSs. Restenosis (stenosis of 50 % or more in the previously stented segment) was detected in 28 (14 % of angiographic control) first-generation drug-eluting stents, 94 (10 %) second-generation drug-eluting stents, and 21 (27 %) BMSs. Patients with BMS restenosis returned significantly earlier than patients with restenosis of the first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (11 [6, 27] months vs. 32 [11; 48]) months and 24 [12; 42] months, respectively; p<0.05). The initial and repeat levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) were higher in patients with restenosis (2.2 [1.2, 5.0] mg / L vs. 2.1 [1.0, 4.6] mg / L, respectively; p> 0.05) than in patients without restenosis (2.0 [0.9, 4.2] mg / L vs. 1.9 [0.7, 3.5] mg / L respectively, p>0.05). Blood levels of hs-CRP ≥2 mg / L according to receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis at return visit were used as a predictor to identify restenosis of stents with a diameter <3 mm and a length >25 mm - area under the curve (AUC) 0.67 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.84), p <0.05, odds ratio 3.7 (95 % CI 1.1-12.1), p<0.05. Stent type had a significant effect on the time to restenosis in the survival analysis (p<0.0005). CONCLUSION: The time from coronary stenting to the return visit of patients presenting with restenosis after the implantation of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents is consistent; median time of the return visit of patients with restenosis of the first-generation stents was 2-3 years after coronary stenting. Blood levels of hs-CRP ≥2 mg / L at the return visit is a predictor of restenosis of stents with a diameter <3 mm and a length >25 mm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Filatova et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Stable ischemic heart disease (n=3,732). High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) ≥2 mg/L vs. hs-CRP <2 mg/L was evaluated on Restenosis in stents <3 mm in diameter and >25 mm in length (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.1-12.1, p=<0.05). High-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentration ≥2 mg/L at repeat presentation was a significant predictor of restenosis in stents <3 mm in diameter and >25 mm in length (OR 3.7).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: