Abdulrahman Bachir, Mashayekhi Kambis, Tajti Péter, Ferenc Miroslaw, Valina Christian Marc, Hochholzer Willibald, Neumann Franz-Josef, Nührenberg Thomas Georg
Department for Cardiology and Angiology II, University Heart Center Freiburg-Bad Krozingen, 79189 Bad Krozingen, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2020 Dec 7;9(12):3964. doi: 10.3390/jcm9123964.
Interventional treatment of aorto-ostial coronary stenoses is limited by stent recoil and suboptimal angiographic results, leading to restenosis and frequent re-interventions. As a potential bail-out strategy for stent recoil, implantation of an additional stent to increase radial force has been reported. Thus, we sought to investigate clinical outcomes after additional implantation of a Dynamic Renal stent (DRS), a non-coronary; bare-metal stent with very high radial force, in aorto-ostial coronary stenoses.
Patients treated by implantation of DRSs for stent recoil in the ostial right coronary artery or the left main stem were identified from the hospital database. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were compared to patients who underwent re-intervention for in-stent-restenosis in similar segments by either implantation of conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) or paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB). Clinical follow-ups were performed up to three years following re-intervention with the assessment of death, target lesion reintervention (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as a combination death, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed for event-free survival between the three groups.
Between 05/2013 and 07/2019, 28 patients underwent DRS implantation of aorto-ostial coronary lesions. In comparison with 49 patients with DES implantation and 29 patients undergoing PCB treatment, no relevant differences in baseline parameters were identified. Median follow-up was 714 days, with an available follow-up of >1 year after intervention in 82.1% of patients. In the entire study cohort at two years after re-intervention, the TLR rate was 16% (17 patients), the MACE rate 37% (39 patients), and all-cause mortality 9% (10 patients), with no significant differences between the three groups.
DRS implantation for treating stent recoil of aorto-ostial coronary lesions resulted in a high rate of TLR, and was associated with similar risk for death and MACE compared to treatment of in-stent-restenosis with DES or PCB. Randomized, larger comparisons of contemporary DES in patients exclusively presenting with stent recoil are necessary to further define the efficacy and safety of this approach.
主动脉开口处冠状动脉狭窄的介入治疗受到支架回缩和血管造影结果欠佳的限制,导致再狭窄和频繁的再次干预。作为一种针对支架回缩的潜在补救策略,已有报道通过植入额外的支架来增加径向力。因此,我们试图研究在主动脉开口处冠状动脉狭窄中植入动态肾动脉支架(DRS)(一种非冠状动脉的裸金属支架,具有非常高的径向力)后的临床结果。
从医院数据库中识别出因右冠状动脉开口处或左主干支架回缩而接受DRS植入治疗的患者。将其基线临床和手术特征与通过植入传统药物洗脱支架(DES)或紫杉醇涂层球囊(PCB)对类似节段的支架内再狭窄进行再次干预的患者进行比较。在再次干预后进行长达三年的临床随访,评估死亡、靶病变再次干预(TLR)以及主要不良心脏事件(MACE,定义为死亡、心肌梗死和靶血管血运重建的组合)。对三组之间的无事件生存率进行Kaplan-Meier分析。
在2013年5月至2019年7月期间,28例患者接受了主动脉开口处冠状动脉病变的DRS植入。与49例接受DES植入的患者和29例接受PCB治疗的患者相比,未发现基线参数存在相关差异。中位随访时间为714天,82.1%的患者在干预后有超过1年的有效随访。在整个研究队列中,再次干预后两年时,TLR率为16%(17例患者),MACE率为37%(39例患者),全因死亡率为9%(10例患者),三组之间无显著差异。
植入DRS治疗主动脉开口处冠状动脉病变的支架回缩导致TLR率较高,与使用DES或PCB治疗支架内再狭窄相比,死亡和MACE风险相似。有必要对仅表现为支架回缩的患者进行当代DES的随机、更大规模比较,以进一步明确这种方法的疗效和安全性。