Clinical impact of in-stent late loss after drug-eluting coronary stent implantation†

Moreno, Raúl; Fernández, Cristina; Sánchez‐Recalde, Ángel; Galeote, Guillermo; Calvo, Luís; Alfonso, Fernándo; Hernández, Rosana; Sánchez-Aquino, Rosa; Angiolillo, Dominick J.; Villarreal, Sérgio; Macaya, Carlos; López‐Sendón, José

doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl423

Cited by 51 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study confirms the very well known clinical benefits of DES in very different settings [28]. The NNT for TLR was ranged from 4 to 21 for sirolimus stents, from 7 to 40 for paclitaxel stents, and from 8 to 25 for the types of DES .…”

Section: Clinical Benefit Of Dessupporting

confidence: 87%

Determining clinical benefits of drug-eluting coronary stents according to the population risk profile: A meta-regression from 31 randomized trials

Moreno¹,

Martín-Reyes²,

Jiménez‐Valero³

et al. 2011

International Journal of Cardiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Clinical Benefit Of Dessupporting

confidence: 87%

Determining clinical benefits of drug-eluting coronary stents according to the population risk profile: A meta-regression from 31 randomized trials

Moreno¹,

Martín-Reyes²,

Jiménez‐Valero³

et al. 2011

International Journal of Cardiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore, for 52 months of clinical followup, 7% and 8% of lesions had delayed angiographic restenosis and underwent target lesion revascularization, respectively, reflecting that 75% of lesions had less than 0.28 mm of delayed LL. Indeed, an LL lower than 0.5 or 0.6 mm was associated with an extremely low incidence of target lesion revascularization in previous DES studies [18]. With regard to the annual increase of LL, the lower LLR in the delayed phase compared to the early phase indicates that proportional luminal loss beyond 6 months is not as high as the period within the first 6 months.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Angiographic evidence of progressive lumen narrowing over 2years following drug-eluting stent implantation

Park

Kim

et al. 2011

International Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the era of DESs, ISLL has demonstrated to be a valid parameter to evaluate the clinical efficacy of a given DES, and because of that it has been adopted as a parameter to compare different types of DESs. 13 Among patients undergoing coronary angiography, 13% to 18% of them have a TCO.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting and Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Total Coronary Occlusions

Moreno¹,

Garcı́a²,

Teles³

et al. 2013

Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Second-generation DESs have provided better platforms, new drugs, and new polymers, with the objective of improve deliverability and even safety of these devices. Among them, Background-Patients with coronary total occlusions are at especially high risk for restenosis and new revascularizations.Sirolimus-eluting stents dramatically improved the clinical outcome of this subset of patients in randomized trials, but other drug-eluting stents, mainly the everolimus-eluting stent (currently the most frequently used stent), have not yet been evaluated in patients with coronary total occlusions. The objective was to compare the second-generation everolimuseluting stent with the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary total occlusions. Methods and Results-A total of 207 patients with coronary total occlusions and estimated time since occlusion >2 weeks were randomized to everolimus-or sirolimus-eluting stent. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up (noninferiority trial). Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and 12 months. In-stent late loss at 9 months was 0.29±0.60 versus 0.13±0.69 mm in patients allocated to sirolimus-and everolimus-eluting stent, respectively. The observed difference in in-stent late loss between both groups was -0.16 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.04 to -0.36 mm; P for noninferiority <0.01). The rate of binary angiographic restenosis was 10.8% and 9.1% in patients allocated to sirolimus-and everolimus-eluting stent, respectively (P=0.709), whereas the rate of vessel reocclusion was 3.2% and 1.1%, respectively (P=0.339). At 12 months, the rate of major adverse events was 15.9% versus 11.1% with sirolimusand everolimus-eluting stent, respectively (P=0.335), and probable or definitive stent thrombosis occurred in 3.0% and 0.0% of patients, respectively (P=0.075). Conclusions-In

show abstract

Clinical impact of in-stent late loss after drug-eluting coronary stent implantation†

Abstract: There is a strong and significant association between the degree of inhibition of neointimal formation with the use of DES and the clinical impact of using DES instead of BMS.

Cited by 51 publications

References 38 publications

Determining clinical benefits of drug-eluting coronary stents according to the population risk profile: A meta-regression from 31 randomized trials

Determining clinical benefits of drug-eluting coronary stents according to the population risk profile: A meta-regression from 31 randomized trials

Angiographic evidence of progressive lumen narrowing over 2years following drug-eluting stent implantation

Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting and Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Total Coronary Occlusions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About