These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical presentation and outcomes of coronary in-stent restenosis across 3-stent generations.
    Author: Magalhaes MA, Minha S, Chen F, Torguson R, Omar AF, Loh JP, Escarcega RO, Lipinski MJ, Baker NC, Kitabata H, Ota H, Suddath WO, Satler LF, Pichard AD, Waksman R.
    Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv; 2014 Dec; 7(6):768-76. PubMed ID: 25466551.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Clinical presentation of bare metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients undergoing target lesion revascularization is well characterized and negatively affects on outcomes, whereas the presentation and outcomes of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) remains under-reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study included 909 patients (1077 ISR lesions) distributed as follows: bare metal stent (n=388), first-generation DES (n=425), and second-generation DES (n=96), categorized into acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or non-ACS presentation mode at the time of first target lesion revascularization. ACS was further classified as myocardial infarction (MI) and unstable angina. For bare metal stent, first-generation DES and second-generation DES, ACS was the clinical presentation in 67.8%, 71.0%, and 66.7% of patients, respectively (P=0.470), whereas MI occurred in 10.6%, 10.1%, and 5.2% of patients, respectively (P=0.273). The correlates for MI as ISR presentation were current smokers (odds ratio, 3.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-5.13; P<0.001), and chronic renal failure (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.60-4.70; P<0.001), with a protective trend for the second-generation DES ISR (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-1.03; P=0.060). ACS presentations had an independent effect on major adverse cardiac events (death, MI, and re-target lesion revascularization) at 6 months (MI versus non-ACS: adjusted hazard ratio, 4.06; 95% CI, 1.84-8.94; P<0.001; unstable angina versus non-ACS: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.01-3.87; P=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: ISR clinical presentation is similar irrespective of stent type. MI as ISR presentation seems to be associated with patient and not device-related factors. ACS as ISR presentation has an independent effect on major adverse cardiac events, suggesting that ISR remains a hazard and should be minimized.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]