Beneficial 2-years results of drug-eluting stents in saphenous vein graft lesions

Assali, Abid; Raz, Yael; Vaknin‐Assa, Hana; Ben‐Dor, Itsik; Brosh, David; Teplitsky, Igal; Fuchs, Shmuel; Kornowski, Ran

doi:10.4244/eijv4i1a18

Cited by 34 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of historical controls in some of the included studies (18,22,25,27,33,42) might have influenced the results, because this has been shown to favor new treatments (14). However, stratified analysis excluding studies using historical controls showed persistence in the significant reduction in TLR, TVR, and MACE (Online Table 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Interventions

Wiisanen

Abdel‐Latif

Mukherjee

et al. 2010

JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Interventions

Wiisanen

Abdel‐Latif

Mukherjee

et al. 2010

JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stent thrombosis rates were available in only 15 studies. [12][13][14][15][17][18][19]21,22,24,25,27,30,33,36 Although the OR point estimate (OR, 0.54) suggests reduced risk for stent thrombosis with DES, the wide 95% CrI (0.13 to 1.39) precludes definitive conclusions regarding any benefit of DES over BMS (Figure 7) with regard to this specific end point.…”

Section: Meta-analysis Of Studied Outcomes Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Periprocedural treatment with clopidogrel was more disparate among eligible studies. In most trials, clopidogrel was prescribed for at least 1 month after BMS placement 13,[17][18][19][21][22][23]25,[27][28][29]36 and for at least 3 18 -20,22,25,28 or 6 months 13,14,17,19,21,23,25,27,28,32,33,36,37 after DES implantation. In the DELAYED RISCC study, 12 clopidogrel was administered for at least 2 months in all patients.…”

Section: Study Selection and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug-Eluting or Bare Metal Stents for the Treatment of Saphenous Vein Graft Disease

Paradis

Bélisle²,

Joseph³

et al. 2010

Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-Observational studies and randomized, controlled trials have yielded uncertain results regarding the benefits of drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the cumulative evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of DES to treat SVG compared with bare metal stent (BMS When combining these outcomes, the OR for major adverse cardiac events was reduced in patients treated with DES (OR, 0.62; 95% CrI, 0.46 to 0.81). Finally, the relative risk of stent thrombosis appeared lower with DES, although again the CrIs were very wide (OR, 0.54; 95% CrI, 0.13 to 1.39). Conclusions-In this study-level meta-analysis, the largest ever reported and the first using bayesian methods, the use of DES for the treatment of SVG disease reduces target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization procedures compared with BMS. Although there is no evidence to date to suggest increased rates of mortality, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis, further data are needed to address this safety issue. (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:565-576.)

show abstract

“…7 Depois desses estudos randomizados iniciais realizados em pequenos grupos, foram apresentadas muitas séries de populações do mundo real com lesões em EVS. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Recentemente foram publicadas duas metaanálises de ensaios randomizados e estudos observacionais, abrangendo mais de 5 mil pacientes. Meir et al 21 relataram taxas semelhantes de morte, IM e RLA em pacientes tratados com stents farmacológicos e stents não-farmacológicos em ensaios randomizados.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Stents farmacológicos vs. stents não-farmacológicos no tratamento de enxertos de veia safena

Collet¹,

Costa²,

Sousa³

et al. 2011

Rev. Bras. Cardiol. Invasiva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOIntrodução: Embora os stents farmacológicos tenham reduzido acentuadamente a reestenose e a necessidade de novas revascularizações na maioria dos cenários clínicos e angiográficos, o benefício desses dispositivos no tratamento de lesões em enxertos de veia safena (EVS) ainda precisa ser definido. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a incidência de eventos cardíacos adversos maiores (ECAM) entre stents farmacológicos e stents não-farmacológicos em lesões em EVS em pacientes não-selecionados. Métodos: Foram incluídos pacientes tratados em dois hospitais terciários entre maio de 2006 e janeiro de 2009. O objetivo primá-rio foi comparar a incidência de ECAM entre stents farmacológicos e stents não-farmacológicos durante a hospitalização e no seguimento a longo prazo. Resultados: No total, foram incluídos, consecutivamente, 308 pacientes, divididos de acordo com o tipo de stent implantado (209 com stents farmacológicos e 99 com stents não-farmacológicos). A média de idade do grupo foi de 68 anos e a dos EVS, de 10,9 anos. Na fase intra-hospitalar, houve tendência para maior incidência de ECAM no grupo que recebeu stents farmacológicos (12% vs. 5,1%; P = 0,06). Até 24 meses, a incidência de ECAM foi equivalente nos dois grupos (17,2% no grupo stents farmacológicos vs. 18,2% no grupo stents não-farmacológicos; P = 0,87). Trombose do stent definitiva/provável foi semelhante em ambos os grupos (2,3% no grupo stents farmacológicos vs. 2% no grupo stents não-farmacológicos; P = 0,94). Conclusões: Nesta série de pacientes complexos do mundo real, não houve preocupação com a segurança a longo prazo relacionada ao uso de stents farmacológicos no tratamento de lesões em EVS, com incidências similares de morte cardíaca/infarto do miocárdio/trombose do stent em ambos os grupos. DESCRITORES:Stents. Stents farmacológicos. Veia safena. ABSTRACT Drug-Eluting Stents vs. Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft LesionsBackground: Although drug-eluting stents have markedly reduced restenosis and the need for repeat lesion revascularization in the vast majority of clinical and angiographic scenarios, the benefit of these devices for the treatment of saphenous-vein graft (SVG) lesions is yet to be defined. The aim of our study was to compare the rate of major adverse clinical events (MACE) between drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents in SVG lesions in non-selected patients. Methods: Patients treated in two tertiary hospitals betweenMay 2006 and January 2009 were included. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of MACE between drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents during hospitalization and in the long-term follow-up. Results: Overall, 308 patients were consecutively enrolled and divided according to the type of stent deployed (209 with drug-eluting stents and 99 with bare-metal stents). Mean age was 68 years and SVG mean age was 10.9 years. In the in-hospital phase there was a trend towards higher MACE in the drug-eluting stents group (12% vs. 5.1%; P = 0.06). The incidence of MACE in up to 24 months was equi...

show abstract

Beneficial 2-years results of drug-eluting stents in saphenous vein graft lesions

Cited by 34 publications

References 22 publications

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Interventions

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Interventions

Drug-Eluting or Bare Metal Stents for the Treatment of Saphenous Vein Graft Disease

Stents farmacológicos vs. stents não-farmacológicos no tratamento de enxertos de veia safena

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About