Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
J Endovasc Ther ; 13(6): 701-10, 2006 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17154704

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To review clinical outcomes of patients with chronic limb ischemia and TASC type C lesions treated with sirolimus-eluting versus bare SMART nitinol self-expanding stents. METHODS: Data were obtained from a randomized, multicenter, double-blinded study conducted in 2 phases. All 93 patients had chronic limb ischemia and superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusions or stenoses (average lesion length 8.3 cm). In total, 47 patients (31 men; mean age 66.3+/-9.1 years, range 50-84) received the sirolimus-eluting SMART stent and 46 patients (36 men; mean age 65.9 +/-10.8 years, range 38-83) received a bare SMART nitinol stent. Both groups were followed for a mean 24 months. RESULTS: Both the sirolimus-eluting and the bare SMART stents were effective in revascularizing the diseased SFA and in sustaining freedom from restenosis. For both types of stents, improvements in ankle-brachial indices (ABI) and symptoms of claudication were maintained over 24 months (median 24-month ABI 0.96 for the sirolimus group versus 0.87 for the bare stent group, p>0.05). At 24 months, the restenosis rate in the sirolimus group was 22.9% versus 21.1% in the bare stent group (p>0.05). The cumulative in-stent restenosis rates according to duplex ultrasound were 4.7%, 9.0%, 15.6%, and 21.9%, respectively, at 6, 9, 18, and 24 months; the rates did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. The TLR rate for the sirolimus group was 6% and for the bare stent group 13%; the TVR rates were somewhat higher: 13% and 22%, respectively. Mortality rates did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that the sirolimus-eluting and the bare SMART stent are effective, safe, and free from restenosis in a majority of patients for up to 24 months. Because the restenosis rate in the bare stent group is unexpectedly low, no significant difference could be found between the sirolimus-eluting and the bare SMART stents.


Asunto(s)
Aleaciones , Angioplastia de Balón/métodos , Antibacterianos , Aterosclerosis/terapia , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/métodos , Arteria Femoral , Sirolimus , Stents , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Angioplastia de Balón/efectos adversos , Aterosclerosis/complicaciones , Aterosclerosis/diagnóstico , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Método Doble Ciego , Portadores de Fármacos , Femenino , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Falla de Prótesis , Recurrencia , Seguridad , Stents/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
J Vasc Interv Radiol ; 16(3): 331-8, 2005 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15758128

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To investigate further the safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting S. M.A.R.T. Nitinol Self-expanding Stent by comparison with a bare stent in superficial femoral artery (SFA) obstructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind study involved 57 patients (29 in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and 28 in the bare stent group) with chronic limb ischemia and SFA occlusions (66.7%) or stenoses (average lesion length, 81.5 mm +/- 41.2). Stent implantation followed standard interventional techniques and a maximum of two stents could be implanted. The primary endpoint was the in-stent mean lumen diameter at 6 months as determined by quantitative angiography. RESULTS: Both stent types were effective in revascularizing the diseased SFA and allowing sustained patency for at least 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the in-stent mean lumen diameter at 6 months (4.94 mm +/- 0.69 and 4.76 mm +/- 0.54 mm for sirolimus-eluting and bare stent groups, respectively; P = .31). Although the diameter of the target lesion tended to be larger and percent stenosis tended to be lower with the sirolimus-eluting stent, there were no statistically significant differences between treatments in terms of any of the variables. The mean late loss values were 0.38 mm +/- 0.64 and 0.68 mm +/- 0.97 for the sirolimus-eluting stent group and the bare stent group, respectively (P = .20). The binary restenosis rates, with a cutoff of 50% at 6 months, were zero in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and 7.7% in the bare stent group (P = .49). Clinical outcomes matched angiographic outcomes with improvements in ankle-brachial index and symptoms of claudication. There was no significant difference between treatments in terms of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Although there is a trend for greater efficacy in the sirolimus-eluting stent group, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the variables.


Asunto(s)
Arteriopatías Oclusivas/tratamiento farmacológico , Arteria Femoral , Oclusión de Injerto Vascular/prevención & control , Inmunosupresores/administración & dosificación , Sirolimus/administración & dosificación , Stents , Anciano , Aleaciones/química , Angiografía , Arteriopatías Oclusivas/diagnóstico por imagen , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunosupresores/farmacocinética , Pierna/irrigación sanguínea , Masculino , Recurrencia , Sirolimus/farmacocinética , Estadísticas no Paramétricas , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA