CLINICAL RESEARCH: INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY
Randomized Double-Blind Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare-Metal Stent Implantation in Diseased Saphenous Vein Grafts
Six-Month Angiographic, Intravascular Ultrasound, and Clinical Follow-Up of the RRISC Trial
Paul Vermeersch, MD*,1,*,
Pierfrancesco Agostoni, MD*,1,
Stefan Verheye, MD, PhD*,
Paul Van den Heuvel, MD*,
Carl Convens, MD*,
Nico Bruining, PhD ,
Frank Van den Branden, MD* and
Glenn Van Langenhove, MD, PhD*
* Antwerp Cardiovascular Institute Middelheim, AZ Middelheim, Antwerp, Belgium
Thoraxcenter, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Manuscript received May 3, 2006;
revised manuscript received July 17, 2006,
accepted July 18, 2006.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Paul Vermeersch, Antwerp Cardiovascular Institute Middelheim, AZ Middelheim, Lindendreef 1, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium. (Email: paul.vermeersch{at}zna.be).
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare, in a randomized fashion, sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein grafts (SVGs).
BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-eluting stents reduce restenosis and repeated revascularization in native coronary arteries compared with BMS. However, randomized data in SVG are absent.
METHODS: Patients with SVG lesions were randomized to SES or BMS. All were scheduled to undergo 6-month coronary angiography. The primary end point was 6-month angiographic in-stent late lumen loss. Secondary end points included binary angiographic restenosis, neointimal volume by intravascular ultrasound and major adverse clinical events (death, myocardial infarction, target lesion, and vessel revascularization).
RESULTS: A total of 75 patients with 96 lesions localized in 80 diseased SVGs were included: 38 patients received 60 SES for 47 lesions, whereas 37 patients received 54 BMS for 49 lesions. In-stent late loss was significantly reduced in SES (0.38 ± 0.51 mm vs. 0.79 ± 0.66 mm in BMS, p = 0.001). Binary in-stent and in-segment restenosis were reduced, 11.3% versus 30.6% (relative risk [RR] 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15 to 0.97, p = 0.024) and 13.6% versus 32.6% (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97, p = 0.031), respectively. Median neointimal volume was 1 mm3 (interquartile range 0 to 13) in SES versus 24 (interquartile range 8 to 34) in BMS (p < 0.001). Target lesion and vessel revascularization rates were significantly reduced, 5.3% versus 21.6% (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.0, p = 0.047) and 5.3% versus 27% (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.83, p = 0.012), respectively. Death and myocardial infarction rates were not different.
CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stents significantly reduce late loss in SVG as opposed to BMS. This is associated with a reduction in restenosis rate and repeated target lesion and vessel revascularization procedures. (The RRISC Study; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show; NCT00263263
[ClinicalTrials.gov]
).
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | BMS = bare-metal stent | | CI = confidence interval | | IVUS = intravascular ultrasound | | MACE = major adverse cardiac event | | MI = myocardial infarction | | MLD = minimal luminal diameter | | PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention | | RR = relative risk | | RVD = reference vessel diameter | | SES = sirolimus-eluting stent | | SVG = saphenous vein graft | | TLR = target lesion revascularization | | TVR = target vessel revascularization |
|
Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) remain the most frequently used conduits in coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1). However, within a decade after surgery, one-half of the SVGs develop significant atherosclerotic disease, and recurrent angina after bypass surgery is a common clinical problem (2). Repeated bypass surgery is technically more challenging than the first operation, and it is associated with greater morbidity and mortality; thus, currently percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred treatment for SVG lesions (3,4). Specifically, the implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS) is the actual strategy to treat these patients (5,6). However, the results of BMS in SVGs are less favorable than those in native vessels, with restenosis rates exceeding 30% (5,7).
The introduction of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) recently has reduced the occurrence of angiographic restenosis and repeated revascularization with respect to BMS in native coronary artery disease (8,9). Despite the growing evidence of the benefits of SES in several subsets of lesions (10–14) and patients (15,16), SVGs have always been excluded from these randomized trials, and currently available registries on SES in SVG offer inconsistent results (17–21). Thus, the aim of our study was to assess whether the use of SES improves angiographic and clinical outcomes when compared with BMS in patients with diseased SVGs.
|
Methods
|
|---|
The RRISC (Reduction of Restenosis In Saphenous vein grafts with Cypher sirolimus-eluting stent) trial is a randomized double-blind nonindustry-sponsored trial performed in a single center with large experience in the percutaneous treatment of SVG disease (22,23). The trial design was approved by the ethics committee of AZ Middelheim Hospital.
Patient population.
Patients were included if they were 18 to 85 years old, had a history of previous coronary artery bypass surgery, had stable or unstable angina, and had one or more "de novo" target lesions (>50% diameter stenosis by visual estimate) localized in one or more diseased SVG with a reference vessel diameter (RVD) >2.5 and <4.0 mm. Exclusion criteria were myocardial infarction (MI) within the previous 7 days (with creatine kinase-myocardial band elevation >2 times the upper limit of normal), documented left ventricular ejection fraction <25%, impaired renal function (creatinine >3.0 mg/dl), distal graft anastomotic stenosis, totally occluded SVGs, previous brachytherapy treatment in the index vessel, or and allergy to aspirin, clopidogrel, heparin, stainless steel, contrast agent, or sirolimus. Aorto-ostial location and thrombotic and/or calcified lesions were not considered exclusion criteria. All enrolled patients provided written informed consent before the index procedure.
Procedural protocol.
After percutaneous access was obtained, heparin was administered to maintain an activated clotting time >250 s. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockers were given at operator’s discretion. The use of a distal protection device (GuardWire, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) was strongly recommended. After successful crossing of the target lesion with the guidewire, patients were allocated randomly in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with Cypher SES or BX-Velocity BMS (both from Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey). In case of treatment of more than one lesion, the stent type remained the same. Direct stenting was promoted. In case of dissection or incomplete lesion coverage, the use of additional stents of the same type as the assigned stent was mandated. Angiographic success was defined as implantation of the study device with residual diameter stenosis <30% and normal (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction-3) coronary blood flow. Aspirin (100 to 300 mg/day) was given daily, and clopidogrel (loading dose of 300 mg, 6 to 48 h before the procedure and 75 mg/day thereafter) was administered for 2 months in all patients. Serial blood samples for creatine kinase, creatine kinase-myocardial band and cardiac troponin I were routinely obtained before the procedure and at 8, 16, and 24 h after the intervention.
Randomization and blinding process.
The randomization process was unblocked and nonstratified. The randomization list was generated by a computer. Randomization was performed by means of opaque envelopes (concealed until the operator successfully wired the target vessel) containing a letter (i.e., "A" or "B"). Because the standard package of the stents is the only visible difference between the two stent types, additional external packages, labeled respectively with "A" or "B" and the specific stent measure, were used. The appearance of the 2 stent types, once the standard package was opened, was the same because the delivery system, the shaft, the stent design, and the measures available were the same for both. After randomization, the interventional staff left the catheterization laboratory, and an independent nurse opened the package of the stent selected from randomization and left the stent on the catheterization table. Thus, the operator (and his staff) and the patient were unaware of the stent type.
Clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) follow-up.
Patients were evaluated clinically 1 and 6 months after the procedure. Coronary angiography was repeated at 6 months (±15 days) and IVUS analysis was recommended in every SVG treated with a study stent. Intravascular ultrasound was performed after injection of 0.2 mg of nitroglycerin with a 30-MHz ultrasound probe (Ultracross 2.9F, Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, Massachusetts), connected to the Galaxy ultrasound console (Boston Scientific Corporation), and a motorized pullback (speed: 0.5 mm/s). Angiography was performed earlier if there were recurrent symptoms, but if restenosis was not found during this repeated angiography, a new angiography was performed at 6 months.
Quantitative coronary angiographic analysis.
Digital coronary angiograms were analyzed offline by an expert operator blinded to the procedure (with an intraobserver variability for measurements of <5%; range, 2.4% to 9.2%), using a validated automated edge detection system (CAAS II, PIE Medical, Maastricht, the Netherlands). Matched views were selected for angiograms recorded before and immediately after the intervention and at 6-month follow-up. Angiographic measurements were made both in the stent and in the stented segment (defined as the stent plus the 5-mm edges proximal and distal to the stent) during diastole using the contrast-filled guiding catheter for magnification calibration. In case overlapping stents were placed, a single in-stent value was measured, and the segment was considered as the entirely stented part plus the 5 mm proximal to the more proximal stent and the 5 mm distal to the more distal stent implanted. Lesion RVD, minimal luminal diameter (MLD), percent diameter stenosis, and length were obtained at baseline. Reference vessel diameter, MLD, and diameter stenosis were evaluated at the end of the procedure and at follow-up for the in-stent, proximal edge, distal edge, and in-segment sections (24). Acute gain was defined as the difference between the in-stent MLD at the end of the intervention and the MLD at baseline. Late lumen loss was calculated as the difference in MLD between measurements immediately after the procedure and at follow-up. Binary angiographic restenosis was defined as diameter stenosis >50% by quantitative coronary angiography, at the follow-up angiogram (25). Restenosis patterns were assessed using the Mehran classification system (26).
IVUS analysis.
Intravascular ultrasound data were stored on S-VHS videotape. The videotapes were transformed into the DICOM medical image standard. Quantitative coronary ultrasound analysis was performed using a validated software (Curad, version 4.32, Wijk bij Duurstede, the Netherlands), allowing semiautomated detection of luminal and stent boundaries in reconstructed longitudinal planes (27). To obtain a smooth appearance of the vessel wall structures in the longitudinal views, the Intelligate image-based gating method was applied (28–30). This validated technique retrospectively selects end-diastolic frames, allowing more reliable volumetric measurements. Volumetric quantitative coronary ultrasound analysis was obtained for stent and lumen. Neointimal volume was computed as the difference between the stent volume and the lumen volume.
End points and definitions.
The primary end point of the study was 6-month in-stent late lumen loss. Secondary angiographic end points included in-segment late loss and in-stent and in-segment binary restenosis rate. Secondary IVUS end point was in-stent neointimal volume. The secondary clinical end points were in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates. MACE included death, all nonfatal major MI (also periprocedural), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Major periprocedural MI was defined as an elevation of creatine kinase enzyme-myocardial band activity >3 times above the upper limit of normal (16 U/l in our institution). Nonperiprocedural MI was defined as a new ischemic event with creatine kinase-myocardial band >2 times the upper limit of normal, or the electrocardiographic presence of new pathological Q waves. We also recorded minor periprocedural myocardial damage, defined as a elevation of cardiac troponin I >0.4 ng/dl (31) or, if preprocedural cardiac troponin I was already positive (in unstable patients), doubling of its value at any of the postprocedural samples, without fulfillment of the criteria for major periprocedural MI. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was defined as a repeated revascularization procedure (either PCI or coronary bypass surgery) due to restenosis in the stented segment. Target vessel revascularization was defined as a new revascularization procedure in the target vessel, including also TLR. Target vessel failure was defined as a composite of TVR, treated vessel-related MI, and cardiac death. Stent thrombosis was defined according to Iakovou et al. (32). All the clinical events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee unaware of the patients’ treatment assignment.
Statistical analysis.
Sample size was calculated on the assumption that the mean per-lesion in-stent late loss in the BMS group would be 1 ± 0.9 mm. To detect a decrease in mean late loss in the SES group of 0.6 mm, with an 80% power and a 2-tailed type I (alpha) error of 0.05, 35 patients per group were required. Considering a 10% rate of patients with >1 lesion intervention (22,23) and a 15% rate of dropouts, the number of enrolled patients was increased by 8%.
All analyses were conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. The quantitative angiographic and IVUS results were analyzed on a per-lesion basis, whereas the clinical events were assessed per-patient. Continuous data are expressed as means ± standard deviations or as medians [interquartile range] as appropriate, whereas dichotomous data are summarized as frequencies. Student t or Mann-Whitney U test (as appropriate) and chi-square or the Fisher exact test (as appropriate) have been used, respectively, for continuous and categorical variables, to analyze differences between the 2 study arms. A linear regression analysis with the primary end point (in-stent late loss) as dependent variable and all the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics known to influence late loss as independent variables (stent type, maximum balloon diameter, maximum inflation pressure, postdilation performed, total stent length per lesion, diabetes, age of coronary artery bypass grafting, baseline lesion length, baseline RVD) also was performed to confirm the results of our analysis. Relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for dichotomous variables. Computation of the number-needed-to-treat (with 95% CI), extrapolated from the absolute risk difference, was made for clinical variables. A 2-sided p value <0.05 was considered significant for all tests.
|
Results
|
|---|
Study population and procedural outcomes.
Between September 2003 and November 2004, 75 patients with 96 lesions localized in 80 SVGs were enrolled (Fig. 1). Baseline clinical characteristics of the patients, as well as the angiographic and procedural characteristics of the lesions treated, are shown in Table 1. The 2 groups were well balanced for all the variables considered. Of a total of 114 stents deployed, 54 were BMS and 60 SES. Angiographic success was achieved in all the lesions treated. The use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was very low (only in 1 SES patient). Distal protection devices were used in more than 80% of the lesions treated. Only in case of distal position of the stenosis in the vein graft (not enough space for the placement of the device), suboptimal back up of the guiding catheter, or presumed low risk of embolization (very focal lesions), distal protection was not used.
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 1 Complete flowchart of the patients enrolled in the RRISC (Reduction of Restenosis In Saphenous vein grafts with Cypher sirolimus-eluting stent) trial. BMS = bare-metal stent; MI = myocardial infarction; RVD = reference vessel diameter; SES = sirolimus-eluting stent.
|
|
Six-month angiographic and IVUS outcomes.
None of the patients was lost to follow-up. At 6 months, 3 SES patients did not receive angiographic follow-up. An 83-year-old man with diabetes died 5 months after the procedure because of severe progressive cardiac failure. The other 2 patients refused the control angiography. Both were completely symptom-free and without inducible ischemia at the 6-month clinical visit. Thus, 6-month angiography was performed in 37 (100%) BMS patients and in 35 (92%) SES patients (p = 0.24). An IVUS analysis was performed in 59 patients (81.9% of all the patients receiving angiographic follow up). Overall, 39 lesions were analyzed in the BMS group, whereas 34 lesions were analyzed in the SES group (p = 0.40). Reasons for lack of IVUS follow-up in 13 patients included occlusive or subocclusive in-stent restenosis that prevented a safe passage of the IVUS probe or poor trackability of the IVUS probe in the SVG because of the tortuosity of vessel itself. Patient demographics were not different between those patients with versus without IVUS at follow-up.
Angiographic and IVUS data are presented in Table 2. The primary end point of the study, lesion-based in-stent late loss reduction, was met. Also, the linear regression analysis showed that the only adjusted predictor of in-stent late loss remained the type of stent used (p = 0.001). Accordingly, SES showed a significant reduction in all other secondary angiographic and IVUS end points on a per-lesion analysis. The RR of in-stent or in-segment restenosis occurrence after SES versus BMS was 0.37 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.97) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.97), respectively. Among the 6 in-segment binary restenoses after SES, 1 occurred in the distal edge, whereas the others were in-stent. Five of 6 were focal (83.3%), and 1 was diffuse (16.7%). No SES-restenotic occlusion was detected. Four restenoses (66%) occurred when multiple SES were deployed to cover one lesion. All the 16 in-segment binary restenoses after BMS were in-stent, apart from 1 that occurred in the proximal edge. After BMS implantation, most restenoses (62.5%) had a non-focal pattern: 7 diffuse (43.8%), 1 proliferative (6.3%), and 2 occlusive (12.5%).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2. Quantitative Coronary Angiography and Intravascular Ultrasound Volumetric Analysis of Lesions Treated in the Two Groups
|
|
In-hospital, 1-month, and 6-month clinical outcomes.
Clinical events are presented in Table 3. No deaths or urgent revascularizations occurred during hospitalization. The rate of major periprocedural MI was 4%, whereas minor myocardial damage occurred in 17.3% of the patients, without differences between BMS and SES patients (see Table 3 for details). Between the end of the hospitalization and the first month after treatment no further events were recorded.
After 35 days, 1 MI occurred in a SES patient because of the occlusion of a vein graft other than the one treated in the index procedure. After 5 months, a patient in the SES group died, as previously described. The rates of TLR and TVR (all ischemia-driven PCI, namely PCI performed because of anginal complains or evidence of myocardial ischemia at exercise or pharmacological stress test) were significantly reduced after SES with respect to BMS: 5.3% versus 21.6% (p = 0.047) and 5.3% versus 27% (p = 0.012), respectively. The RR for TLR was 0.24 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.0), whereas for TVR it was 0.19 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.83). Number-needed-to-treat calculation showed that assigning 6 (3 to 175) patients to SES prevents a TLR with respect to BMS. Moreover, 5 (2 to 19) patients should be treated with SES to prevent a TVR. All TVR occurred at 6 months apart from 2 in the BMS group (1 at 2 months and 1 at 4 months); furthermore, 2 patients who received BMS underwent TLR in 2 lesions each. Indeed, on a per-lesion analysis the RR of TLR was 0.21 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.90). The cumulative MACE rate was not different between the 2 groups. No stent thrombosis was recorded.
|
Discussion
|
|---|
Recurrent angina after coronary artery bypass surgery is a common clinical problem. Within 10 years after the operation, half of all SVGs are totally occluded or have severe atherosclerotic disease (2). Although the implantation of BMS is the actual percutaneous strategy to treat patients with SVG lesions, the incidence of angiographic restenosis and repeated revascularization remains high (5,7,19). Implantation of SES has the potential to become the new therapeutic approach (19,20), but there has been no prospective comparison of BMS and SES in SVGs.
Our study is the first randomized comparison of SES versus BMS in patients with diseased SVGs. Our data show that in this challenging setting the use of SES effectively reduces late lumen loss when compared with BMS. Late lumen loss has been extensively used in interventional cardiology trials as a reliable end point for 2 reasons. First, late lumen loss is a surrogate for in-stent neointimal hyperplasia (which is the pathological process that can lead to in-stent restenosis) (33). Accordingly, our IVUS data demonstrate that SES efficiently inhibits neointimal hyperplasia in SVG: a complete absence of neointimal growth was evident in 47% of the SES lesions versus only 2.5% of the BMS lesions. Second, recent data have shown that late lumen loss is a robust parameter to compare different types of stents and to predict binary angiographic and clinical differences (33,34). Although our study was underpowered to assess clinical end points, the beneficial angiographic and IVUS outcomes translated into a significant advantage in terms of binary restenosis, TLR and TVR, which suggests a clinical benefit for SES over BMS also in diseased SVGs, mainly for a reduced revascularization procedure rate. The finding of relative risk reductions of approximately 60% for restenosis and of around 80% for repeated revascularization further substantiates this benefit, as these values compare well with those obtained in trials performed in native coronary arteries (8–16).
Our trial is the first randomized study to date performed in de novo SVG lesions to show a significant angiographic benefit. Neither the pivotal Saphenous Vein De novo trial nor the recent Venestent trial were able to show a significant reduction in binary angiographic restenosis (which was the primary end point of both studies) of BMS versus balloon angioplasty (5,6). Furthermore, in these 2 trials, the late loss of BMS was comparable with that of balloon angioplasty, if not worse. Other devices have been recently tested in diseased SVG, with disappointing results (35,36). Membrane-covered stents have been proposed as new option to reduce the restenotic process (35), but results from several randomized trials failed to show a significant benefit over standard BMS (36–38). In percutaneous SVG treatment, only the WRIST SVG (Washington Radiation for In-Stent Restenosis Trial for Saphenous Vein Graft) study showed a significant reduction of all the angiographic and clinical end points adding radiation therapy to conventional treatment (39). However, this trial assessed only in-stent restenotic SVG lesions; thus, its results cannot be extrapolated to de novo SVG lesions.
External validity.
Several issues remain to be evaluated. First, the possible risk of late stent thrombosis, which has been already shown for native coronary arteries (40,41), also should be considered in a potentially favorable milieu such as SVG. Indeed, plaques in SVGs are lipid-rich, soft, and more prone to rupture than plaques in native coronary arteries (42). In addition, the histopathology of SVG after stent implantation is a mixture of cellular hyperplasia, progression of atherosclerosis, local inflammatory reaction to metallic stent struts, and thrombosis (43,44). Second, longer-term outcomes also may be compromised by late SES restenosis, a phenomenon that was recently described in native coronary arteries (45) and that can be potentially exacerbated by the specific pathology of SVGs. Finally, because of the exclusion criteria of our trial, our data do not apply to large SVGs (with RVD >4.0 mm), to in-stent restenotic lesions, to occluded vein grafts, to lesions localized in the distal vein graft anastomosis, and to patients treated for acute MI related to a sudden SVG occlusion.
Study limitations.
The main limitations of our study are inherent to the monocentric design and the small sample size, which was underpowered for major clinical end points and led to broad confidence intervals for the assessment of the relative risks and the number needed to treat for repeated revascularization procedures. Therefore, the possible existence of type I (alpha) or II (beta) error for all the secondary end points should not be dismissed. In particular, the rate of periprocedural myocardial damage (as assessed by troponin elevation) was more than double after SES, despite this increase was nonsignificant.
In light of the nondefinitive clinical results of this trial, we welcome future larger trials, with a multicenter design, to unquestionably show a clinical benefit of SES in SVG with respect to BMS. In particular, these trials should mainly focus on potentially harmful events, such as late restenosis and stent thrombosis.
Conclusions.
Our study has shown that, in diseased SVGs, SES significantly reduce 6-month angiographic late lumen loss as opposed to BMS. This reduction is associated with a reduction in binary restenosis rate and repeated target lesion and target vessel revascularization procedures.
Participating RRISC Investigators.
Steering Committee: Paul Vermeersch, MD (principal investigator); Stefan Verheye, MD, PhD; Glenn Van Langenhove, MD, PhD.
Data Monitoring: Christine Jacobs, RN; Nancy Aerts, RN; Anne-Rose Gustin (BVBA Incubate, Cardiac Solutions).
Clinical Events Adjudication Committee: Giuseppe M. Sangiorgi, MD; Giuseppe G. L. Biondi-Zoccai, MD.
Angiographic Data Evaluation Committee: Pierfrancesco Agostoni, MD.
Intravascular Ultrasound Evaluation Committee: Nico Bruining, PhD.
Statistical Analysis: Glenn Van Langenhove, MD, PhD; Pierfrancesco Agostoni, MD.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
1 Drs. Vermeersch and Agostoni contributed equally to this work. 
|
References
|
|---|
1. Alexander JH, Hafley G, Harrington RA, et al. PREVENT IV Investigators Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery: PREVENT IV: a randomized controlled trial JAMA 2005;294:2446-2454.[Abstract/Free Full Text]2. Fitzgibbon G, Kafka H, Leach A, Keon WJ, Hooper GD, Burton JR. Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: angiographic follow-up of 5065 grafts related to survival and reoperation in 1388 patients during 25 years J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:616-626.[Abstract] 3. Weintraub WS, Jones EL, Morris DC, King 3rd SB, Guyton RA, Craver JM. Outcome of reoperative coronary bypass surgery versus coronary angioplasty after previous bypass surgery Circulation 1997;95:868-877. 4. Salomon N, Page U, Bigelow J, Krause AH, Okies JE, Metzdorff MT. Reoperative coronary surgery: comparative analysis of 6591 patients undergoing primary bypass and 508 patients undergoing reoperative coronary artery bypass J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990;100:250-259.[Abstract] 5. Savage M, Douglas J, Fischman D, et al. SAVED Investigators Stent placement compared with balloon angioplasty for obstructed coronary bypass grafts N Engl J Med 1997;337:740-747.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 6. Hanekamp C, Koolen J, Den Heijer P, et al. Venestent Study Group Randomized study to compare balloon angioplasty and elective stent implantation in venous bypass grafts: the VENESTENT study Cathet Cardiovasc Interv 2003;60:452-457.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 7. Silber S, Albertsson P, Aviles FF, et al. Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions: the task force for percutaneous coronary interventions of the European society of cardiology Eur Heart J 2005;26:804-847.[Free Full Text] 8. Moses J, Leon M, Popma J, et al. SIRIUS Investigators Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery N Engl J Med 2003;349:1315-1323.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 9. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. RAVEL Study Group Randomized Study with the Sirolimus-Coated Bx Velocity Balloon-Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients with de Novo Native Coronary Artery LesionsA randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1773-1780.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 10. Schofer J, Schluter M, Gershlick AH, et al. E-SIRIUS Investigators Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS) Lancet 2003;362:1093-1099.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 11. Schampaert E, Cohen EA, Schluter M, et al. C-SIRIUS Investigators The Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with long de novo lesions in small native coronary arteries (C-SIRIUS) J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1110-1115.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 12. Ardissino D, Cavallini C, Bramucci E, et al. SES-SMART Investigators Sirolimus-eluting vs. uncoated stents for prevention of restenosis in small coronary arteries: a randomized trial JAMA 2004;292:2727-2734.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 13. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Von Beckerath N, et al. ISAR-DESIRE Study Investigators Sirolimus-eluting stent or paclitaxel-eluting stent vs. balloon angioplasty for prevention of recurrences in patients with coronary in-stent restenosisA randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;293:165-171.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 14. Suttorp MJ, Laarman GJ, Rahel BM, et al. Primary Stenting of Totally Occluded Native Coronary Arteries II (PRISON II): a randomized comparison of bare metal stent implantation with sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of total coronary occlusions Circulation 2006;114:921-928. 15. Valgimigli M, Percoco G, Malagutti P, et al. STRATEGY Investigators Tirofiban and sirolimus-eluting stent vs abciximab and bare-metal stent for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized trial JAMA 2005;293:2109-2117.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 16. Sabate M, Jimenez-Quevedo P, Angiolillo DJ, et al. DIABETES Investigators Randomized comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent versus standard stent for percutaneous coronary revascularization in diabetic patients: the diabetes and sirolimus-eluting stent (DIABETES) trial Circulation 2005;112:2175-2183. 17. Hoye A, Lemos PA, Arampatzis CA, et al. Effectiveness of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of saphenous vein graft disease J Invasive Cardiol 2004;16:230-233.[Medline] 18. Price M, Sawhney N, Kao JA, Madrid A, Schatz RA, Teirstein PS. Clinical outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for de novo saphenous vein graft lesions Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;65:208-211.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 19. Ge L, Iakovou I, Sangiorgi G, et al. Treatment of saphenous vein graft lesions with drug eluting stents J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:989-994.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 20. Lee MS, Shah AP, Aragon J, et al. Drug-eluting stenting is superior to bare metal stenting in saphenous vein grafts Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;66:507-511.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 21. Chu WW, Rha SW, Kuchulakanti PK, et al. Efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft intervention Am J Cardiol 2006;97:34-37.[Web of Science][Medline] 22. Van Langenhove G, Vermeersch P, Kay IP, et al. Elective Wiktor GX stenting for symptomatic stenosis in old aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass grafts: the Antwerp experience J Invasive Cardiol 1999;11:274-280.[Web of Science][Medline] 23. Van Langenhove G, Vermeersch P, Serrano P, et al. Saphenous vein graft disease treated with the Wiktor Hepamed stent: procedural outcome, in-hospital complications and six-month angiographic follow-up Can J Cardiol 2000;16:473-480.[Web of Science][Medline] 24. Van der Zwet P, Reiber J. A new approach for the quantification of complex lesion morphology: the gradient field transform; basic principles and validation results J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:216-224.[Abstract] 25. Lansky AJ, Dangas G, Mehran R, et al. Quantitative angiographic methods for appropriate end-point analysis, edge-effect evaluation, and prediction of recurrent restenosis after coronary brachytherapy with gamma irradiation J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:274-280.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 26. Mehran R, Dangas G, Abizaid AS, et al. Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis: classification and implications for long-term outcome Circulation 1999;100:1872-1878. 27. Hamers R, Bruining N, Knook M, Sabate M, Roelandt JR. A novel approach to quantitative analysis of intravascular ultrasound images Computers in Cardiology. Rotterdam: IEEE Computer Society Press; 2001589–592. 28. Bruining N, von Birgelen C, de Feyter PJ, et al. ECG-gated versus nongated three-dimensional intracoronary ultrasound analysis: implications for volumetric measurements Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1998;43:254-260.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 29. De Winter SA, Hamers R, Degertekin M, et al. Retrospective image-based gating of intracoronary ultrasound images for improved quantitative analysis: the intelligate method Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004;61:84-94.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 30. von Birgelen C, de Vrey EA, Mintz GS, et al. ECG-gated three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound: feasibility and reproducibility of the automated analysis of coronary lumen and atherosclerotic plaque dimensions in humans Circulation 1997;96:2944-2952. 31. Myocardial infarction redefined—a consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction Eur Heart J 2000;21:1502-1513.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 32. Iakovou I, Schmidt T, Bonizzoni E, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of thrombosis after successful implantation of drug-eluting stents JAMA 2005;293:2154-2156.[Free Full Text] 33. Kereiakes DJ, Kuntz RE, Mauri L, Krucoff MW. Surrogates, substudies, and real clinical end points in trials of drug-eluting stents J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1206-1212.[Free Full Text] 34. Mauri L, Orav EJ, Kuntz RE. Late loss in lumen diameter and binary restenosis for drug-eluting stent comparison Circulation 2005;111:3435-3442. 35. Baldus S, Koster R, Elsner M, et al. Treatment of aortocoronary vein graft lesions with membrane-covered stents: a multicenter surveillance trial Circulation 2000;102:2024-2027. 36. Stankovic G, Colombo A, Presbitero P, et al. Randomized evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent in saphenous vein grafts: the Randomized Evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene COVERed stent in Saphenous vein grafts (RECOVERS) trial Circulation 2003;108:37-42. 37. Schachinger V, Hamm CW, Munzel T, et al. STENTS (STents IN Grafts) Investigators A randomized trial of polytetrafluoroethylene-membrane-covered stents compared with conventional stents in aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1360-1369.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 38. Turco MA, Buchbinder M, Popma JJ, et al. Pivotal, randomized U.S. study of the Symbiot covered stent system in patients with saphenous vein graft disease: eight-month angiographic and clinical results from the Symbiot III trial Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;68:379-388.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 39. Waksman R, Ajani AE, White RL, et al. Intravascular gamma radiation for in-stent restenosis in saphenous-vein bypass grafts N Engl J Med 2002;346:1194-1199.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 40. McFadden EP, Stabile E, Regar E, et al. Late thrombosis in drug-eluting coronary stents after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy Lancet 2004;364:1519-1521.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 41. Ong AT, McFadden EP, Regar E, de Jaegere PP, van Domburg RT, Serruys PW. Late angiographic stent thrombosis (LAST) events with drug-eluting stents J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:2088-2092.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 42. Bryan AJ, Angelini GD. The biology of saphenous vein graft occlusion: etiology and strategies for prevention Curr Opin Cardiol 1994;9:641-649.[Web of Science][Medline] 43. Depre C, Havaux X, Wijns W. Pathology of restenosis in saphenous bypass grafts after long term implantation Am J Clin Pathol 1998;110:378-384.[Web of Science][Medline] 44. Van Beusekom H, Van Der Giessen W, Van Suylen R, Bos E, Bosman FT, Serruys PW. Histology after stenting of human saphenous vein bypass grafts: observations from surgically excised grafts 3 to 320 days after stent implantation J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;21:45-54.[Abstract] 45. Wessely R, Kastrati A, Schomig A. Late restenosis in patients receiving a polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent Ann Intern Med 2005;143:392-394.[Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
C. Lichtenwalter, J. A. de Lemos, M. Roesle, O. Obel, E. M. Holper, D. Haagen, B. Saeed, J. M. Iturbe, K. Shunk, J. K. Bissett, et al.
Clinical Presentation and Angiographic Characteristics of Saphenous Vein Graft Failure After Stenting: Insights From the SOS (Stenting Of Saphenous Vein Grafts) Trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
September 1, 2009;
2(9):
855 - 860.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Bittl
Drug-eluting stents for saphenous vein graft lesions: the limits of evidence.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
March 17, 2009;
53(11):
929 - 930.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. S. Brilakis, C. Lichtenwalter, J. A. de Lemos, M. Roesle, O. Obel, D. Haagen, B. Saeed, C. Gadiparthi, J. K. Bissett, R. Sachdeva, et al.
A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent Versus a Similar Bare-Metal Stent in Saphenous Vein Graft Lesions: The SOS (Stenting Of Saphenous Vein Grafts) Trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
March 17, 2009;
53(11):
919 - 928.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. E. Kip, K. Hollabaugh, O. C. Marroquin, and D. O. Williams
The Problem With Composite End Points in Cardiovascular Studies The Story of Major Adverse Cardiac Events and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
February 19, 2008;
51(7):
701 - 707.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. L. Grines
Off-label use of drug-eluting stents putting it in perspective.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
February 12, 2008;
51(6):
615 - 617.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Abbott, M. R. Voss, M. Nakamura, H. A. Cohen, F. Selzer, K. E. Kip, H. A. Vlachos, R. L. Wilensky, and D. O. Williams
Unrestricted Use of Drug-Eluting Stents Compared With Bare-Metal Stents in Routine Clinical Practice: Findings From the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
November 20, 2007;
50(21):
2029 - 2036.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Colombo and A. Chieffo
Drug-Eluting Stent Update 2007: Part III: Technique and Unapproved/Unsettled Indications (Left Main, Bifurcations, Chronic Total Occlusions, Small Vessels and Long Lesions, Saphenous Vein Grafts, Acute Myocardial Infarctions, and Multivessel Disease)
Circulation,
September 18, 2007;
116(12):
1424 - 1432.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Daemen and P. W. Serruys
Drug-Eluting Stent Update 2007: Part II: Unsettled Issues
Circulation,
August 21, 2007;
116(8):
961 - 968.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Agostoni, P. Vermeersch, S. Verheye, P. Van den Heuvel, C. Convens, F. Van den Branden, and G. Van Langenhove
Targeted stent use in clinical practice based on evidence from the Basel Stent Cost Effectiveness Trial (BASKET)
Eur. Heart J.,
August 1, 2007;
28(15):
1912 - 1913.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Vermeersch, P. Agostoni, S. Verheye, P. Van den Heuvel, C. Convens, F. Van den Branden, G. Van Langenhove, and DELAYED RRISC (Death and Events at Long-term follo
Increased Late Mortality After Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Diseased Saphenous Vein Grafts: Results From the Randomized DELAYED RRISC Trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
July 17, 2007;
50(3):
261 - 267.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. G. Ellis
"Crying Fire in a Theater" or a "Confirmatory Sighting?"
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
July 17, 2007;
50(3):
268 - 269.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Dixon, C. L. Grines, and W. W. O'Neill
The Year in Interventional Cardiology
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
July 17, 2007;
50(3):
270 - 285.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Jaffe and B. H. Strauss
Late and Very Late Thrombosis of Drug-Eluting Stents: Evolving Concepts and Perspectives
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
July 10, 2007;
50(2):
119 - 127.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Abbate, G. G.L. Biondi-Zoccai, P. Agostoni, M. J. Lipinski, and G. W. Vetrovec
Recurrent angina after coronary revascularization: a clinical challenge
Eur. Heart J.,
May 1, 2007;
28(9):
1057 - 1065.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Kastrati, J. Mehilli, J. Pache, C. Kaiser, M. Valgimigli, H. Kelbaek, M. Menichelli, M. Sabate, M. J. Suttorp, D. Baumgart, et al.
Analysis of 14 Trials Comparing Sirolimus-Eluting Stents with Bare-Metal Stents
N. Engl. J. Med.,
March 8, 2007;
356(10):
1030 - 1039.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sirolimus-Eluting vs. Bare-Metal Stents for SVG lesions
Journal Watch Cardiology,
January 10, 2007;
2007(110):
2 - 2.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods