Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Circulation ; 99(2): 243-7, 1999 Jan 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-9892590

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although early trials indicate the treatment of restenosis with radiation therapy is safe and effective, the long-term impact of this new technology has been questioned. The possibility of late untoward consequences, such as aneurysm formation, perforation, and accelerated vascular disease, is of significant concern. Furthermore, it is not known whether the beneficial effects of radiation therapy will be durable or whether radiation will only delay restenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: A double-blind, randomized trial was undertaken to compare 192Ir with placebo sources in patients with previous restenosis after coronary angioplasty. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a 0.76-mm (0. 03-in) ribbon containing sealed sources of either 192Ir or placebo. All patients underwent repeat coronary angiography at 6 months. All living patients were contacted 24 months after their index study procedure. Patients were assessed with respect to the need for target-lesion revascularization or nontarget-lesion revascularization, occurrence of myocardial infarction, or death. Over a 9-month period, 55 patients were enrolled; 26 were randomized to 192Ir and 29 to placebo. Follow-up was obtained in 100% of living patients at a minimum of 24 months. Target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the 192Ir group (15.4% versus 44.8%; P<0. 01). Nontarget-lesion revascularization was similar in 192Ir and placebo patients (19.2% versus 20.7%; P=NS). There were 2 deaths in each group. The composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower in 192Ir-treated versus placebo-treated patients (23.1% versus 51.7%; P=0.03). No patient in the 192Ir group sustained a target-lesion revascularization later than 10 months. CONCLUSIONS: At 2-year clinical follow-up, treatment with 192Ir demonstrates significant clinical benefit. Although further follow-up (including late angiography) will be necessary, no clinical events have occurred to date in the 192Ir group to suggest major untoward effects of vascular radiotherapy. At the intermediate follow-up time point, vascular radiotherapy continues to be a promising new treatment for restenosis.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Coronaria/radioterapia , Revascularización Miocárdica/métodos , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón , Cateterismo , Angiografía Coronaria , Enfermedad Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Método Doble Ciego , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Iridio/administración & dosificación , Recurrencia
2.
Circulation ; 101(4): 360-5, 2000 Feb 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-10653825

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although several early trials indicate treatment of restenosis with radiation therapy is safe and effective, the long-term impact of this new technology has been questioned. The objective of this report is to document angiographic and clinical outcome 3 years after treatment of restenotic stented coronary arteries with catheter-based (192)Ir. METHODS AND RESULTS: A double-blind, randomized trial compared (192)Ir with placebo sources in patients with previous restenosis after coronary angioplasty. Over a 9-month period, 55 patients were enrolled; 26 were randomized to (192)Ir and 29 to placebo. At 3-year follow-up, target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the (192)Ir group (15. 4% versus 48.3%; P<0.01). The dichotomous restenosis rate at 3-year follow-up was also significantly lower in (192)Ir patients (33% versus 64%; P<0.05). In a subgroup of patients with 3-year angiographic follow-up not subjected to target-lesion revascularization by the 6-month angiogram, the mean minimal luminal diameter between 6 months and 3 years decreased from 2.49+/-0.81 to 2.12+/-0.73 mm in (192)Ir patients but was unchanged in placebo patients. CONCLUSIONS: The early clinical benefits observed after treatment of coronary restenosis with (192)Ir appear durable at late follow-up. Angiographic restenosis continues to be significantly reduced in (192)Ir-treated patients, but a small amount of late loss was observed between the 6-month and 3-year follow-up time points. No events occurred in the (192)Ir group to suggest major untoward effects of vascular radiotherapy. At 3-year follow-up, vascular radiotherapy continues to be a promising new treatment for restenosis.


Asunto(s)
Angioplastia de Balón , Braquiterapia , Angiografía Coronaria , Enfermedad Coronaria/radioterapia , Radioisótopos de Iridio/uso terapéutico , Stents , Anciano , Braquiterapia/mortalidad , Enfermedad Coronaria/mortalidad , Enfermedad Coronaria/terapia , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Oclusión de Injerto Vascular , Humanos , Masculino , Infarto del Miocardio/cirugía , Infarto del Miocardio/terapia , Placebos , Recurrencia , Análisis de Supervivencia
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA