Article
Identification of independent risk factors for restenosis following bare‑metal stent implantation: Role of bare‑metal stents in the era of drug‑eluting stents
- Authors:
- Chang‑Bum Park
- Hoon‑Ki Park
-
View Affiliations / Copyright
Affiliations:
Department of Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 134-727, Republic of Korea, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Veterans Hospital, Seoul 134-791, Republic of Korea
-
Pages:
840-846
|
Published online on:
July 10, 2013
https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2013.1212
- Expand metrics +
Metrics:
Total
Views: 0
(Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics:
)
Metrics:
Total PDF Downloads: 0
(Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics:
)
This article is mentioned in:
Abstract
In the era of drug‑eluting stents (DESs), the ability of clinicians to predict which patients have a low risk of coronary restenosis following bare‑metal stent (BMS) implantion is likely to be of benefit. The study population consisted of 2,711 patients who underwent BMS implantation in 3,770 lesions between 1995 and 2004. With clinical and 6 month follow‑up angiographic data, we retrospectively sought to identify the independent risk predictors of restenosis, applied a previously proposed prediction model and assessed the characteristics of patients with a low likelihood of coronary restenosis within 6 months of BMS implantation. A 6‑month follow‑up coronary angiography was performed in 65.0% of the patients who had undergone the BMS implantation and the rate of restenosis was 26.6%. Using multivariate analysis, diabetes [odds ratio (OR), 1.294; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.094‑1.483; P=0.005], current smoking (OR, 1.294; 95% CI, 1.094‑1.483; P=0.002), a reference vessel diameter of <3.25 mm (OR, 1.238; 95% CI, 1.021‑1.501; P<0.001), a lesion length of >30 mm (OR, 1.645; 95% CI, 1.336‑2.026; P<0.001), ostial lesion (OR, 1.858; 95% CI, 1.437‑2.402; P<0.001), post‑stenting minimal luminal diameter (OR, 0.576; 95% CI, 0.484‑0.685; P<0.001) and bifurcation lesion (OR, 1.353; 95% CI, 1.070‑1.711; P=0.012) were identified as significant independent predictors of restenosis. However, the accuracy of the prediction obtained with the current model, which used the clinical and angiographic variables correlated with the risk of restenosis, was poor. Various clinical and angiographic independent risk variables were revealed to be correlated with the risk of restenosis following BMS implantation in the present large dataset. Certain groups of patients with a relatively low risk of restenosis may be considered for BMS implantation as an alternative to DESs. However, the prediction models used at present are incomplete and further studies are required.
View References
|
1
|
Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al: A
randomized comparison of coronary stent placement and balloon
angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. N Eng J
Med. 331:496–501. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
2
|
Lowe HC, Oesterle SN and Khachigian LM:
Coronary in-stent restenosis: current status and future strategies.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 39:183–193. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
3
|
Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Dussaillant GR, et
al: Patterns and mechanisms of in-stent restenosis. A serial
intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 94:1247–1254. 1996.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
4
|
Singh M, Gersh BJ, McClelland RL, et al:
Clinical and angiographic predictors of restenosis after
percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Prevention of
Restenosis With Tranilast and Its Outcomes (PRESTO) trial.
Circulation. 109:2727–2731. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
5
|
Smith SC Jr, Dove JT, Jacobs AK, et al:
ACC/AHH guidelines of percutaneous coronary intervention (Revision
of the 1993 PTCA guidelines) - executive summary. A report of the
American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task
Force on Practice Guidelines (committee to revise the 1993
guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty). J
Am Coll Cardiol. 37:2215–2239. 2001.
|
|
6
|
Cutlip DE, Chauhan MS, Baim DS, et al:
Clinical restenosis after coronary stenting: perspectives from
multicenter clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 40:2082–2089. 2002.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
7
|
Mercado N, Boersma E, Wijns W, et al:
Clinical and quantitative coronary angiographic predictors of
coronary restenosis: a comparative analysis from the
balloon-to-stent era. J Am Coll Cardiol. 38:645–652. 2001.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
8
|
Kastrati, Schömig A, Elezi S, et al:
Predictive factors of restenosis after coronary stent placement. J
Am Coll Cardiol. 30:1428–1436. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
9
|
Bauters C, Hubert E, Prat A, et al:
Predictors of restenosis after coronary stent implantation. J Am
Coll Cardiol. 31:1291–1298. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
10
|
Serruys PW, Kay IP, Disco C, et al:
Periprocedural quantitative coronary angiographiy after
Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation predicts the restenosis rate at
six months: results of a meta-analysis of the Belgian Netherlands
Stent study (BENESTENT) I, BENESTENT II Pilot, BENESTENT II and
MUSIC trials: Multicenter ultrasound stent in coronaries. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 34:1067–1074. 1999.
|
|
11
|
de Feyter PJ, Kay P, Disco C and Serruys
PW: Reference chart derived from post-stent-implantation
intravascular ultrasound predictors of 6-month expected restenosis
on quantitative coronary angiography. Circulation. 100:1777–1783.
1999.
|
|
12
|
Hausleiter J, Kastrati A, Mehilli J, et
al: Predictive factors for early cardiac events and angiographic
restenosis after coronary stent placement in small coronary
arteries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 40:882–889. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
13
|
Abrams J: Clinical practice. Chronic
stable angina. N Eng J Med. 352:2524–2533. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
14
|
Holmes DR Jr: Risk stratification and
interventional cardiology: Robert L. Frye Lecture. Mayo Clin Proc.
78:1507–1518. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
15
|
Andrikopoulos GK, Chimonas ET and
Toutouzas PK: Paradoxical clinical value of another smoker's
paradox. Circulation. 105:e552002.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
16
|
Cohen DJ, Doucet M, Cutlip DE, Ho KKL,
Popma JJ and Kuntz RE: Impact of smoking on clinical and
angiographic restenoiss after percutaneous coronary intervention;
Another smoker's paradox? Circulation. 104:773–778. 2001.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
17
|
Kettlecamp R, House J, Garg M, Stuart RS,
Grantham A and Spertus J: Using the risk of restenosis as a guide
to triaging patients between surgical and percutaneous coronary
revascularization. Circulation. 110(Suppl 1): II50–II54.
2004.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
18
|
Green Conaway D, Kettlecamp R, House J and
Spertus JA: Clinical predictors of coronary restenosis 1-year after
percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI). Circulation.
106:II-5882002.
|
|
19
|
Ellis SG, Bajzar CT, Bhatt DL, et al:
Real-world bare metal stenting: identification of patients at low
or very low risk of 9-month coronary revascularization. Catheter
Cardiovasc Interv. 63:135–140. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
