首页> 外文期刊>Journal of endovascular therapy: an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists >Sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal low-profile stent for renal artery treatment (GREAT Trial): angiographic follow-up after 6 months and clinical outcome up to 2 years.
【24h】

Sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal low-profile stent for renal artery treatment (GREAT Trial): angiographic follow-up after 6 months and clinical outcome up to 2 years.

机译:西罗莫司洗脱与裸露金属薄型支架进行肾动脉治疗(GREAT试验):6个月后进行血管造影随访,临床结果长达2年。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

PURPOSE: To evaluate the patency of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) in the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (RAS). METHODS: Between November 2001 to June 2003, 105 consecutive symptomatic patients (53 men; mean age 65.7 years) with RAS were treated with either a bare-metal (n=52) or a drug-eluting (n=53) low-profile Palmaz-Genesis peripheral stent at 11 centers in a prospective nonrandomized trial. The primary endpoint was the angiographic result at 6 months measured with quantitative vessel analysis by an independent core laboratory. Secondary endpoints were technical and procedural success, clinical patency [no target lesion revascularization (TLR)], blood pressure and antihypertensive drug use, worsening of renal function, and no major adverse events at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: At 6 months, the overall in-stent diameter stenosis for BMS was 23.9%+/-22.9% versus 18.7%+/-15.6% for SES (p=0.39). The binary restenosis rate was 6.7% for SES versus 14.6% for the BMS (p=0.30). After 6 months and 1 year, TLR rate was 7.7% and 11.5%, respectively, in the BMS group versus 1.9% at both time points in the SES group (p=0.21). This rate remained stable up to the 2-year follow-up but did not reach significance due to the small sample. Even as early as 6 months, both types of stents significantly improved blood pressure and reduced antihypertensive medication compared to baseline (p<0.01). After 6 months, renal function worsened in 4.6% of the BMS patients and in 6.9% of the SES group. The rate of major adverse events was 23.7% for the BMS group and 26.8% for the SES at 2 years (p=0.80). CONCLUSION: The angiographic outcome at 6 months did not show a significant difference between BMS and SES. Renal artery stenting with both stents significantly improved blood pressure. Future studies with a larger patient population and longer angiographic follow-up are warranted to determine if there is a significant benefit of drug-eluting stents in treating ostial renal artery stenosis.
机译:目的:评估与裸金属支架(BMS)相比,西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)在动脉粥样硬化性肾动脉狭窄(RAS)治疗中的通畅性。方法:2001年11月至2003年6月间,连续105例有症状的RAS患者(53例,平均年龄65.7岁)接受了裸药(n = 52)或药物洗脱(n = 53)的低剂量治疗在一项前瞻性非随机试验中,Palmaz-Genesis外周支架位于11个中心。主要终点是独立核心实验室通过定量血管分析测得的6个月时的血管造影结果。次要终点为技术和程序成功,临床通畅[无目标病变血运重建(TLR)],血压和降压药使用,肾功能恶化以及在1、6、12和24个月无重大不良事件。结果:在6个月时,BMS的总体支架内狭窄程度为23.9%+ /-22.9%,而SES为18.7%+ /-15.6%(p = 0.39)。 SES的二元再狭窄率为6.7%,而BMS为14.6%(p = 0.30)。在6个月和1年后,BMS组的TLR率分别为7.7%和11.5%,而SES组的两个时间点的TLR率为1.9%(p = 0.21)。直到2年的随访期,该比率一直保持稳定,但由于样本量少,并未达到显着水平。甚至早在6个月时,与基线相比,两种类型的支架都显着改善了血压并减少了降压药物的使用(p <0.01)。 6个月后,BMS患者的4.6%和SES组的6.9%肾功能恶化。 BMS组在2年时的主要不良事件发生率为23.7%,SES为26.8%(p = 0.80)。结论:6个月时的血管造影结果在BMS和SES之间没有显着差异。肾动脉支架置入支架可显着改善血压。有必要进行更多的患者人群和更长的血管造影随访研究,以确定药物洗脱支架在治疗眼部肾动脉狭窄方面是否具有显着优势。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号