Lesion Revascularization (lesion + revascularization)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Kinds of Lesion Revascularization

  • target lesion revascularization

  • Selected Abstracts

    Cutting Balloon for In-Stent Restenosis:

    Acute, Long-Term Results
    Introduction: Conventional percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) has shown a high rate of ISR (30,55%). Considering the need for both extrusion of hyperplastic intima and additional stent expansion, a cutting balloon might be more effective for the treatment of ISR. Methods: We prospectively assessed the immediate and 8-month outcome of balloon angioplasty using the Barath Cutting Balloon in 100 consecutive patients (mean age: 60.5 ± 10.8 years, 71% male). Results: In 73 lesions (73%), a good result was reached with the cutting balloon only. In 21 lesions (21%) postdilatation and in 6 lesions (6%) predilatation with a conventional balloon was necessary. The mean inflation pressure was 8.7 ± 2.0 (range: 6.0,18.0) atm. Before the procedure the mean minimal luminal diameter (MLD) was 0.95 ± 0.45 mm. Quantitative coronary analysis showed a mean diameter stenosis of 65%± 16%. Immediately after the procedure the mean MLD was 2.42 ± 0.54 mm with a mean diameter stenosis of 19%± 13%. Two patients died during the follow-up period (1 stroke, 1 nonvascular). At 8-month follow-up 26 patients (26%) reported to have anginal complaints CCS class II,IV of whom 16 (16%) needed target lesion revascularization. Conclusion: Treatment of ISR using the Barath Cutting Balloon can be performed safely with good immediate results and a relatively low need for repeated target lesion revascularization at 8-month follow-up. [source]

    Initial and Follow-Up Results of the European SeaquenceÔ Coronary Stent Registry

    The primary objective of the present study was to assess the feasibility and the safety of the SeaquenceÔ stent (CathNet-Science) deployment for the treatment of coronary artery disease and the event-free survival of patients treated with this coronary stent. The study was conducted as a multicenter, prospective, observational registry. Patients with stable or unstable angina pectoris who were candidates for percutaneous coronary intervention with elective stenting of one single de novo lesion in a native coronary artery ,3 mm in diameter were included in the study. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 month and 9 months. Major adverse coronary events (MACE), that is, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (re-PTCA or CABG), were recorded over a period of 9 months. Using this stent, a 99% in-hospital success rate was achieved. A total of 17 patients presented MACE (8.7%) during the whole follow-up period and target lesion revascularization was needed for 14 (7.1%) patients. Using multivariate analysis only some clinical parameters (patients treated for unstable angina, with a history of CABG or of female gender) were found as independent predictors of MACE after coronary stenting. Procedural related factors, angiographic characteristics, or reference diameter were not found to influence clinical outcome. Because the study was performed in patients with a high proportion of complex lesions (relative high-risk nonselected population with nearly one third calcified lesions, many long and type B2 and C lesions) we can conclude that the coronary SeaquenceÔ stent can be considered as a stent of reference in routine practice. (J Interven Cardiol 2004;17:9,15) [source]

    Clinical presentation of patients with late target lesion revascularization,

    Hideaki Kaneda MD
    No abstract is available for this article. [source]

    Usage patterns and 2-year outcomes with the TAXUS express stent: Results of the US ARRIVE 1 registry,

    FACC, John M. Lasala MD
    Abstract Background: It is unclear how well the long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents observed in tightly defined randomized controlled trials (RCT) translates to expanded use in routine practice. Methods: The FDA-mandated TAXUS® Express2Ô ARRIVE 1 postmarket registry was designed to consecutively enroll patients receiving ,1 TAXUS stent in low-, medium-, and high-volume US sites (n = 50). All cardiac events plus an additional 20% sample of records were monitored and all endpoints were independently adjudicated. Results: Detailed follow-up data through 2 years were compiled for 2,487 patients (95%). Simple-use (on-label) ARRIVE 1 patients (35%) had outcomes similar to 4 pooled TAXUS RCTs for death (3.5% vs. 3.4%, respectively, P = 0.78), Q-wave myocardial infarction (QWMI, 0.7% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.72), and stent thrombosis (ST, 2.2% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.12), but lower target vessel revascularization (7.8% vs. 13.4%, P < 0.0001). Compared with simple-use, cases representing expanded use to treat broader patient/lesion characteristics showed higher 2-year rates for death (7.4% vs. 3.5%, respectively, P = 0.0003), target lesion revascularization (9.4% vs. 5.8%, P = 0.0031), and ST (3.4% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.061, concentrated early in the first year). Conclusions: By including methods usually found in RCT, ARRIVE 1 captured a broad spectrum of disease treated in standard practice with high levels of ascertainment of clinical outcomes. In the more complicated cases, expectedly higher adverse event rates were seen compared to that found in the simple-use cases or pivotal RCT. These results have now been included in the Directions for Use, to aid in physician and patient decision-making. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

    Three-year follow-up of the first prospective randomized comparison between paclitaxel and sirolimus stents: The TAXi-LATE trial

    Alexandre Berger MD
    Abstract Goal: Analysis of the 3-year outcome of the original population of the TAXi trial which compared the efficacy of the paclitaxel (PES) and the sirolimus (SES) stents in a randomized "real world" investigation. History: The widespread use of drug-eluting stents strongly modified the world of interventional cardiology. The TAXi trial was a randomized comparison between PES and SES and showed similar efficacy between the two prostheses. Recently, emerging discussions raised questions about potential long-term risk with the use of DES. The present work attempts to describe the long-term outcome of the patients compared during the TAXi trial. Method: During April 2003 and January 2004, 202 patients were prospectively randomly assigned to the PES group (102 patients) and to the SES group (100 patients). The primary aim of the present investigation was the comparison of combined incidence of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization within 36-months. Results: No difference in mortality of all causes was noted in the PES and the SES groups (3% vs. 7%, P = 0.98) or in major adverse cardiac event free survival (89% vs. 83%, P = 0.28). Four stent thromboses were observed, two in the PES group (205 and 788 days) and two in the SES group (210 and 772 days). Conclusion: The long-term outcome analysis of the TAXi trial confirms available published data showing the equivalence of PES and SES on clinical basis. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

    Long-term outcomes of bifurcation lesions after implantation of drug-eluting stents with the "mini-crush technique"

    Alfredo R. Galassi MD, FSCAI
    Abstract Objectives: To evaluate clinical and angiographic long-term outcome of "the mini-crush" technique for treating bifurcation lesions. Background: Despite proven efficacy of drug-eluting stent (DES) within most lesions subsets, bifurcation lesions continue to exhibit high restenosis rate using current DES stenting technique. Methods: We report a new stenting technique which was employed in 45 consecutive patients (52 lesions) between April 2004 and July 2005 to treat true bifurcation lesions using DES in both branches. Results: Using this technique procedural success was obtained in 100% of cases, without complications and with excellent angiographic result in 96.1% and 98.1% of main vessel and side branch. Preprocedure reference vessel diameter and minimal lumen diameter (MLD) were 2.68 ± 0.48 and 0.90 ± 0.55 mm for the main branch, respectively and 2.28 ± 0.34 and 1.14 ± 0.47 mm for the side branch, respectively. Postprocedure MLD was 2.56 ± 0.39 mm for the main branch and 2.16 ± 0.29 mm for the side branch. There were no in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE). At 72 days after procedure there was one case of side branch stent thrombosis (2.2%), which resulted in non Q-wave MI. Angiographic follow up was obtained in 100% of patients at 7.5 ± 1.3 months. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 12.2%; no death and Q-wave MI were observed; reference vessel diameter and MLD for the main branch were 2.79 ± 0.51 and 1.99 ± 0.65 mm respectively and for the side branch 2.28 ± 0.40 and 1.63 ± 0.48 mm respectively. Restenosis rate in the main branch was 12.2% while in the side branch was 2.0%. Conclusions: In-hospital outcome indicates that the mini-crush technique for bifurcation lesions with DES can be easily performed. It provides very low total MACE rate and restenosis at 8-month follow-up. These results confirmed the advantage of this specific technique to give complete coverage of the ostium of the side branch using two stents technique. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

    Effect of stents in reducing restenosis in small coronary arteries: A meta-analysis

    FSCAI, Paul T. Vaitkus MD
    Abstract The ability of stents to reduce restenosis was established in larger coronary arteries. Clinical trials of stenting in smaller vessels have yielded conflicting results due in part to their sample sizes. The aim of this meta-analysis was to increase the statistical power by pooling data from these clinical trials. Trials were identified from Medline search, review of recent cardiology meetings' abstracts, and manual review of bibliographies. Studies were included if they were prospective randomized controlled trials. Endpoints examined included a dichotomized definition of angiographic restenosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), or any repeat revascularization. Pooling of data was performed by calculating a Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR). The analysis included 2,598 patients enrolled in eight clinical trials. Stenting significantly reduced restenosis (OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.61,0.63). Concordantly, stenting reduced TLR (OR = 0.49), TVR (OR = 0.90), and any revascularization (OR = 0.48). This meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that stenting reduces restenosis in small coronary arteries as well as in larger coronary arteries. The apparent discordant result of individual clinical trials was due in part to underpowering related to small sample sizes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004;62:425,429. © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

    Clinical outcomes for sirolimus-eluting stent implantation and vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of in-stent restenosis

    Francesco Saia MD
    Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the mid-term clinical outcome of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation and vascular brachytherapy (VBT) for in-stent restenosis (ISR). We assessed the 9-month occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in 44 consecutive patients with ISR treated with SES implantation and 43 consecutive patients treated with VBT in the period immediately prior. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. During follow-up, three patients (7%) died in the VBT group and none in the SES group. The incidence of myocardial infarction was 2.3% in both groups. Target lesion revascularization was performed in 11.6% of the VBT patients and 16.3% of the SES patients (P = NS). The 9-month MACE-free survival was similar in both groups (79.1% VBT vs. 81.5% SES; P = 0.8 by log rank). The result of this nonrandomized study suggests that sirolimus-eluting stent implantation is at least as effective as vascular brachytherapy in the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004;62:283,288. © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

    Restenosis and Progression of Coronary Disease after Balloon Angioplasty in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus

    CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY, Issue 12 2000
    Yoseph Rozenman M.D.
    Abstract Background: Patients with diabetes mellitus (D) (both insulin-requiring D [IRD] and non-IRD) who undergo angioplasty have worse long-term outcome than do non-D patients. Few data are available in the literature that explain these findings. Hypothesis: The study was undertaken to compare restenosis and progression of coronary disease after angioplasty in IRD patients, in non-IRD patients, and in non-D patients. Methods: Diabetic patients who underwent coronary angioplasty were separated into two subgroups: IRD and non-IRD patients. Their angiographic outcome was compared with non-D patients. We examined retrospectively 353 coronary angiograms of patients who were referred for diagnostic angiography > 1 month after successful angioplasty. Quantitative angiography was used to determine the outcome in dilated narrowings (restenosis) and in nondilated narrowings (disease progression). Results: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar in all groups. Restenosis rate was higher in IRD (61 %) than in non-IRD (36%) and non-D (35%) patients (p = 0.04). Late luminal loss after angioplasty was two times greater in IRD patients than in the other two groups (p=0.01). Disease progression of nondilated narrowings was significantly more prominent in non-IRD than in non-D patients: Diameter stenoses were similar in the initial angiogram, but narrowings were significantly more severe (p=0.02) in the final angiogram (70 ± 27% and 60 ± 33%, respectively). New narrowings were more common in non-IRD than in non-D patients: there was a 23% increase in the number of narrowings in the follow-up angiogram in non-IRD patients compared with only 12% in non-D patients (p < 0.003). These new narrowings were more common (p=0.01) in angioplasty arteries (57 narrowings on 420 arteries,13.6%) than in nonangioplasty arteries (54 narrowings on 639 arteries,8.5%). Conclusion: Restenosis is more common in IRD patients and explains the high rate of adverse cardiac events within the first year after coronary intervention in these patients (mainly target lesion revascularization). Disease progression (including new narrowings) is the main determinant of patient outcome > 1 year after coronary intervention and is accelerated in non-IRD compared with non-D patients. [source]

    An everolimus-eluting stent versus a paclitaxel-eluting stent in small vessel coronary artery disease: A pooled analysis from the SPIRIT II and SPIRIT III trials,

    Antonio L. Bartorelli MD
    Abstract Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent compared to the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent in small vessels. Backgroud: The XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) has been shown to improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous myocardial revascularization, but its performance in small coronary arteries has not been investigated. Methods: In this pooled analysis, we studied a cohort of 541 patients with small coronary vessels (reference diameter <2.765 mm) by using patient and lesion level data from the SPIRIT II and SPIRIT III studies. TAXUS Express (73% of lesions) and TAXUS Liberté (27% of lesions) paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) were used as controls in SPIRIT II. In SPIRIT III, Taxus Express2 PES was the control. Results: Mean angiographic in-stent and in-segment late loss was significantly less in the EES group compared with the PES group, (0.15 ± 0.37 mm vs. 0.30 ± 0.44 mm; P = 0.011 for in-stent; 0.10 ± 0.38 mm vs. 0.21 ± 0.34 mm; P = 0.034 for in-segment). EES also resulted in a significant reduction in composite major adverse cardiac events at 1 year (19/366 [5.2%] vs. 17/159 [10.7%]; P = 0.037), due to fewer non-Q-wave myocardial infarctions and target lesion revascularizations. At 1 year, the rate of non-Q-wave myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the EES group compared with that of the PES group (6/366 [1.6%] vs. 8/159 [5.0%]; P = 0.037). Conclusions: In patients with small vessel coronary arteries, the XIENCE V EES was superior to the TAXUS PES. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]