Premium
Clinical outcomes for sirolimus‐eluting stent implantation and vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of in‐stent restenosis
Author(s) -
Saia Francesco,
Lemos Pedro A.,
Hoye Angela,
Sianos Georgios,
Arampatzis Chourmouzios A.,
de Feyter Pim J.,
van der Giessen Willem J.,
Smits Pieter C.,
van Domburg Ron T.,
Serruys Patrick W.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.20068
Subject(s) - medicine , mace , restenosis , brachytherapy , stent , sirolimus , myocardial infarction , surgery , radiation therapy , conventional pci
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.