Clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes between drug-eluting stent (DES) and bare metal stent (BMS): 18-month follow-up study

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivian W. Lee ◽  
Franco W. Cheng ◽  
Adrian Y. Choi ◽  
Sam T. Fong ◽  
Cheuk Man Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bare Metal Stent ◽  
Economic Outcomes ◽  
Drug Eluting Stent ◽  
Bare Metal ◽  
Metal Stent ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
Drug Eluting

scholarly journals TCT-482 First generation drug-eluting stent is worse than contemporary bare metal stent after long-term follow-up: A report from SCAAR

2016 ◽  
Vol 68 (18) ◽  
pp. B193
Author(s):  
Sebastian Volz ◽  
Christian Dworeck ◽  
Oscar Angeras ◽  
Inger Haraldsson ◽  
Dan Ioanes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
First Generation ◽  
Bare Metal Stent ◽  
Drug Eluting Stent ◽  
Bare Metal ◽  
Metal Stent ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Drug Eluting

scholarly journals Validation and comparison of drug eluting stent to bare metal stent for restenosis rates following vertebral artery ostium stenting: A single-center real-world study

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 629-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Long Li ◽  
Xu Wang ◽  
Bin Yang ◽  
Yabing Wang ◽  
Peng Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vertebral Artery ◽  
Bare Metal Stent ◽  
Drug Eluting Stent ◽  
Bare Metal ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Metal Stent ◽  
Stent Type ◽  
Drug Eluting ◽  
Stent Diameter

Background and purpose While drug-eluting stents (DES) have been widely applicated in coronary stenosis, uncertainty persists concerning the relative performance and clinical benefit in patients undergoing vertebral artery stenting when compared with a bare metal stent (BMS). We sought to compare in-stent restenosis (ISR) rates of DES and BMS in the treatment of vertebral artery ostium (VAO) stenosis. Materials and Methods This study analyzed a single-center prospective cohort. Over 1.5-year period (January 2014-June 2015), 137 consecutive patients underwent VAO stenting involving deployment of 76 DES and 74 BMS. Patient demographics, comorbidities, stenosis severity, stent diameters and lengths, periprocedural complications, imaging and duplex ultrasonography follow-up and recurrent symptoms were assessed. Results Technical success was achieved in all patients. Mean VAO stenosis at presentation were 82.4 ± 7.2% in the DES group and 83.3 ± 7.5% in the BMS group and were reduced to 12.5 ± 4.5% and 11.3 ± 4.0%. Mean stent diameter was 3.53 ± 0.40 mm in DES and 5.05 ± 0.40 mm in BMS (p < 0.0001). Mean follow-up was 12.3 months for DES and 11.7 months for BMS. The use of DES was associated with significant lower ISR rates compared with BMS (18.4% vs. 31.1%; OR = 2.628, p = 0.021). Recurrent symptoms rates were similar in DES vs. BMS (2.6% vs 2.7%, p = 0.680). Stent type and stent diameter were independent risk factors for ISR (P = 0.026). Conclusion Our results suggest superior efficacy of deploying DES for the treatment of VAO stenosis with lower ISR rates as compared to BMS, but do not support significant differences in periprocedural risk and recurrent symptoms rate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document