Li Jian-jun, Xu Bo, Yang Yue-jin, Ma Wei-hua, Chen Ji-lin, Qiao Shu-bing, Qin Xue-wen, Yao Min, Liu Hai-bo, Wu Yong-jian, Yuan Jin-qing, Chen Jue, You Shi-Jie, Dai Jun, Xia Ran, Gao Run-lin
Department of Cardiology, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100037, China.
Chin Med J (Engl). 2006 Jul 5;119(13):1059-64.
In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenge for interventional cardiologists. Some data suggest that drug-eluting stents (DES) represent a promising new option for the treatment of patients with ISR. Currently, 2 DES platforms are available [sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES)], but the superiority of either approach for treating ISR has not been convincingly demonstrated. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively compare angiographic and clinical outcomes after treatment of ISR with SES or PES in a series of consecutive patients with ISR.
A total of 745 consecutive patients were treated with bare metal stents from April 12, 2004 to December 31, 2004 in our center. Of these, clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) was performed in 54 ISR from 54 patients at 7 months. Of the 54 patients with ISR, 36 received SES and 18 received PES. Follow-up included angiography and assessment of clinical outcome, both performed 7 months after DES implantation.
There were no significant differences in baseline clinical data (including medication usage and lesion characteristics) between the two groups. Except for overlapping of multiple stents, procedural parameters were also similar in both groups. Seven-month angiographic follow-up showed that the binary restenosis rate was higher in patients treated with PES than that in patients treated with SES (in-stent binary restenosis: 27.8% vs 5.6%, P < 0.023; In-segment binary restenosis: 44.4% vs 13.9%, P < 0.014). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) occurring during hospitalization or during the follow-up period including thrombosis and TLR was similar in both groups (22.2% vs 8.3%, P > 0.05).
Results from this small sample size, retrospective, single-center study showed that SES might be superior to PES in treating ISR because of lower 7-month restenosis rates (both in-stent and in-segment binary restenosis) with no increased incidence of MACE.
支架内再狭窄(ISR)仍是介入心脏病学家面临的一项挑战。一些数据表明,药物洗脱支架(DES)是治疗ISR患者的一种有前景的新选择。目前有两种DES平台可供使用[西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)和紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES)],但对于治疗ISR而言,这两种方法的优越性尚未得到令人信服的证实。本研究的目的是回顾性比较一系列连续性ISR患者接受SES或PES治疗后的血管造影和临床结果。
2004年4月12日至2004年12月31日期间,共有745例连续性患者在我们中心接受了裸金属支架治疗。其中,54例患者在7个月时对54处ISR进行了临床驱动的靶病变血管重建术(TLR)。在这54例ISR患者中,36例接受了SES,18例接受了PES。随访包括在DES植入7个月后进行血管造影和临床结果评估。
两组患者的基线临床数据(包括用药情况和病变特征)无显著差异。除了多个支架重叠外,两组的手术参数也相似。7个月的血管造影随访显示,接受PES治疗的患者的二元再狭窄率高于接受SES治疗的患者(支架内二元再狭窄:27.8%对5.6%,P<0.023;节段内二元再狭窄:44.4%对13.9%,P<0.014)。两组在住院期间或随访期间发生的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)包括血栓形成和TLR相似(22.2%对8.3%,P>0.05)。
这项小样本、回顾性、单中心研究的结果表明,SES在治疗ISR方面可能优于PES,因为其7个月再狭窄率(包括支架内和节段内二元再狭窄)较低,且MACE发生率未增加。