Key result
DES implantation for bare metal stent restenosis yielded similar rates of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 4 years compared to de novo lesions (10.4% vs 12.4%, P=0.490).
Why the study?
Does drug-eluting stent implantation for diffuse bare metal stent restenosis have similar long-term safety and efficacy compared to its use in high restenosis risk de novo lesions?
Cohort (n=514)
No
Does drug-eluting stent implantation for diffuse bare metal stent restenosis have similar long-term safety and efficacy compared to its use in high restenosis risk de novo lesions?
Absolute Event Rate: 10.4% vs 12.4%
p-value: p=0.490
Drug-eluting stents demonstrate acceptable long-term safety and efficacy for treating diffuse bare metal stent restenosis, with comparable target lesion revascularization rates to high-risk de novo lesions.
May support DES for BMS restenosis; extends observational data but leaves randomized confirmation open.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in the treatment of diffuse bare metal stent (BMS) restenosis as compared to the treatment of de novo coronary lesions in high restenosis risk patient population. BACKGROUND: To date limited long-term data are available about the treatment of BMS restenosis with DES. METHODS: Five hundred and fourteen consecutive patients who underwent DES implantation between January 2003 and October 2006 at our institute were studied: 201 patients received DES for treatment of BMS restenosis and 313 patients received DES for high restenosis risk de novo lesions. Outcomes were calculated using propensity score adjustment. Mean follow-up length was 45.6 ± 21.5 months. RESULTS: The rates of acute coronary syndrome, three-vessel disease, and diabetes were high in both restenosis and de novo groups: 44.8% versus 46.3%, 20.9% versus 28.7%, and 34.3% versus 38.9%, respectively. The incidence of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) yielded similar results in the restenosis group and de novo group at 4 years (10.4% vs 12.4%, P = 0.490). All-cause mortality was lower in the restenosis group at 4 years (7.4% vs 14.7%, P = 0.032); however, the incidence of definite and probable stent thrombosis did not differ (1.9% vs 1.6%, P = 0.708) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: DESs are safe in the treatment of diffuse BMS restenosis and the rate of additional TLR is acceptable as compared to the use of DES in de novo lesions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berta et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Bare metal stent restenosis and high restenosis risk de novo coronary lesions (n=514). Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for bare metal stent restenosis vs. Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for high restenosis risk de novo lesions was evaluated on Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 4 years (p=0.490). DES implantation for bare metal stent restenosis yielded similar rates of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 4 years compared to de novo lesions (10.4% vs 12.4%, P=0.490).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: