CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries as compared with myocardial infarction and obstructive coronary disease: outcomes in a Medicare population 4-Step Protocol for Disparities in STEMI Care and Outcomes in Women Prevalence of anginal symptoms and myocardial ischemia and their effect on clinical outcomes in outpatients with stable coronary artery disease: data from the International Observational CLARIFY Registry Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing: What Is its Value? Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Chronic total occlusion intervention of the non-infarct-related artery in acute myocardial infarction patients: the Korean multicenter chronic total occlusion registry A Test in Context: E/A and E/e' to Assess Diastolic Dysfunction and LV Filling Pressure Heart Regeneration by Endogenous Stem Cells and Cardiomyocyte Proliferation: Controversy, Fallacy, and Progress

Original Research2018 Nov 15;92(6):E416-E424.

JOURNAL:Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Long-term outcomes after treatment of bare-metal stent restenosis with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters or everolimus-eluting stents: 3-year follow-up of the TIS clinical study

Pleva L, Kukla P, Zapletalova J et al. Keywords: everolimus-eluting stent; in-stent restenosis; paclitaxel-eluting balloon

ABSTRACT



BACKGROUND - The efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheters (PEB) and drug-eluting stents for treatment of bare-metal stent restenosis (BMS-ISR) have been demonstrated in several studies with follow-up times of 9 to 12 months; however, the long-term outcomes of ISR treatment are less defined.


OBJECTIVES - We aimed to compare the long-term efficacy of PEB and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for the treatment of BMS-ISR.


METHODS - We analyzed 3-year clinical follow-up data from patients included in the TIS randomized clinical study. A total of 136 patients with BMS-ISR were allocated to receive treatment with either PEB or EES (68 patients with 74 ISR lesions per group).


RESULTS - The PEB and EES groups did not significantly differ in major adverse cardiac events-free survival (MACE; P = .211; including individual events: CV death: P = .622; myocardial infarction: P = .650 or target vessel revascularization: P = .286) at 3-year clinical follow-up. No event-free survival differences were found between the groups regarding overall mortality (P = .818), definite stent thrombosis (P = .165) or the second MACE (P = .270).


CONCLUSIONS - At the 3-year follow-up, no significant differences in clinical outcomes were found between iopromide-coated PEB and EES for the treatment of BMS-ISR. (ClinicalTrials.gov; https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01735825).

© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.