Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv ; 98(5): 874-881, 2021 11 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33085150

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the rate of procedural success and long-term outcomes of the PK Papyrus (PKP) covered stent (CS). BACKGROUND: CS are essential in the treatment of coronary artery perforation (CAP). They have also been used to treat coronary artery aneurysms. Limited evidence is available on clinical outcomes with the PKP. METHODS: This was a multicenter, observational, retrospective, and prospective study. Consecutive patients undergoing intentional PKP implantation in 22 centers in France were included. The primary endpoint was the rate of procedural success. Secondary endpoints included rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), in-stent restenosis (ISR), and stent thrombosis (ST). RESULTS: Data from 130 patients were analyzed (mean age 72.5 ± 10.5 years; 71% men). The main indication for PKP was CAP, in 84 patients (65%). Delivery success was achieved in 95% and procedural success in 91%. During the in-hospital stay, 15 patients died (12%) and 7 (5%) presented with ST. Data from 127 patients were available at 19.2 ± 12.8 month follow-up. Thirty-three patients died (26%), 15 (12%) had an MI and 21 (17%) presented with TLR. TLR was due to ISR in 12 patients (9%), 10 had definite ST (8%) and 1 patient for stent under-expansion. CONCLUSIONS: The principal indication for PKP was CAP. PKP had high rates of delivery and procedural success. At long-term follow-up, there was a high rate of TLR, mainly due to ISR and ST. These results are consistent with previously reported data in these clinical settings.


Asunto(s)
Reestenosis Coronaria , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Diseño de Prótesis , Sistema de Registros , Estudios Retrospectivos , Stents , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
Can J Cardiol ; 36(11): 1805-1814, 2020 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32798463

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is used to restore blood flow in the infarct-related coronary artery, followed by immediate stenting to prevent reocclusion. Stents implanted in thrombus-laden arteries cause distal embolization, which paradoxically impairs myocardial reperfusion and ventricular function. Whether a strategy of delayed stenting improves outcomes in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is uncertain. METHODS: The Primary Reperfusion Secondary Stenting (PRIMACY) is a Bayesian prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point trial in which delayed vs immediate stenting in patients with STEMI were compared for prevention of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, heart failure, or unplanned target vessel revascularization at 9 months. All participants were immediately reperfused, but those assigned to the delayed arm underwent stenting after an interval of 24 to 48 hours. This interval was bridged with antithrombin therapy to reduce thrombus burden. In the principal Bayesian hierarchical random effects analysis, data from exchangeable trials will be combined into a study prior and updated with PRIMACY into a posterior probability of efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 305 participants were randomized across 15 centres in France and Canada between April 2014 and September 2017. At baseline, the median age of participants was 59 years, 81% were male, and 3% had a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. Results from PRIMACY will be updated from the patient-level data of 1568 participants enrolled in the Deferred Stent Trial in STEMI (DEFER; United Kingdom), Minimalist Immediate Mechanical Intervention (MIMI; France), Danish Trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction-3 (DANAMI-3; Denmark), and Impact of Immediate Stent Implantation Versus Deferred Stent Implantation on Infarct Size and Microvascular Perfusion in Patients With ST Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (INNOVATION, South Korea) trials. CONCLUSIONS: We expect to clarify whether delayed stenting can safely reduce the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular end points compared with immediate stenting in patients with STEMI.


Asunto(s)
Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/cirugía , Stents , Teorema de Bayes , Humanos , Diseño de Prótesis , Tiempo de Tratamiento
3.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv ; 9(3): e003388, 2016 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26957418

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Delayed stent implantation after restoration of normal epicardial flow by a minimalist immediate mechanical intervention aims to decrease the rate of distal embolization and impaired myocardial reperfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention. We sought to confirm whether a delayed stenting (DS) approach (24-48 hours) improves myocardial reperfusion, versus immediate stenting, in patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the prospective, randomized, open-label minimalist immediate mechanical intervention (MIMI) trial, patients (n=140) with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction ≤12 hours were randomized to immediate stenting (n=73) or DS (n=67) after Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow restoration by thrombus aspiration. Patients in the DS group underwent a second coronary arteriography for stent implantation a median of 36 hours (interquartile range 29-46) after randomization. The primary end point was microvascular obstruction (% left ventricular mass) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging performed 5 days (interquartile range 4-6) after the first procedure. There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower microvascular obstruction in the immediate stenting group compared with DS group (1.88% versus 3.96%; P=0.051), which became significant after adjustment for the area at risk (P=0.049). Median infarct weight, left ventricular ejection fraction, and infarct size did not differ between groups. No difference in 6-month outcomes was apparent for the rate of major cardiovascular and cerebral events. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings do not support a strategy of DS versus immediate stenting in patients with ST-segment-elevation infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and even suggested a deleterious effect of DS on microvascular obstruction size. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01360242.


Asunto(s)
Infarto del Miocardio/terapia , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/instrumentación , Stents , Trombectomía , Tiempo de Tratamiento , Anciano , Circulación Coronaria , Femenino , Francia , Humanos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Masculino , Microcirculación , Persona de Mediana Edad , Infarto del Miocardio/diagnóstico , Infarto del Miocardio/fisiopatología , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Recuperación de la Función , Volumen Sistólico , Trombectomía/efectos adversos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Función Ventricular Izquierda
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA