• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Mon, 15.07.24

Search results


July 2016
Guy Witberg MD, Ifat Lavi PhD, Hana Vaknin Assa MD, Katia Orvin MD, Abid Assali MD and Ran Kornowski MD FESC FACC

Background: Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is a promising technology that potentially offers several advantages over contemporary coronary drug-eluting stents (DES). Crucial to BVS implantation is the correct choice of scaffold size (diameter and length) in order to avoid "geographic miss" in length, provide the maximal support to the vessel wall, and avoid leaving “free-floating” foreign material in the coronary vasculature. 

Objectives: To assess the optimal method for measuring coronary stenosis prior to BVS implantation.

Methods: We compared the performance of two quantitative coronary angiography assessment (QCA) techniques: two dimensional real-time QCA (2D-QCA) and offline 3D QCA (3D-QCA) for the evaluation of coronary lesions in patients enrolled in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of BVS vs. metallic stents, by calculating the weighted kappa value for agreement regarding optimal BVS size with the reference method – CoreLab offline 2D-QCA measurements..In addition, we collected 2 year clinical outcomes (death/myocardial infarction/repeat revascularization/scaffold thrombosis) in BVS-implanted patients.

Results: In 17 patients with available CoreLab data, the weighted kappa for agreement for 3D-QCA was significantly better than for 2D-QCA (0.90, 95%CI 0.72–1.00 vs. 0.439, 95%CI 0.16–0.77). The rate of clinical events at 2 years was low (9.5%).

Conclusions: Initial experience in a small group of carefully selected patients at our institution, suggests that the use of BVS for coronary revascularization is associated with a low rate of adverse events in suitable patients. 3D-QCA may be superior to 2D-QCA analysis in terms of reproducibility, and results in more patients receiving optimal size BVS. 

 

May 2010
H. Vaknin-Assa, A. Assali, E. Lev, I. Ben-Dor, D. Brosh, I. Teplitsky and R. Kornowski

Background: The best therapeutic alternative for patients suffering from in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation remains to be elucidated.

Objective: To characterize the pattern, treatment and outcomes of DES[1]-related in-stent restenosis in patients treated at our institution.

Methods: We determined the incidence and major adverse clinical events in 71 consecutive patients with DES failure among 2473 patients who were treated with 2548 drug-eluting stents between 2004 and 2007. We analyzed the clinical data, procedural parameters and clinical outcomes.

Results: The type and number of stents implanted were as follows: Cypher (n=1808), Endeavor (421) and Taxus (319) of these, 53 (2.9%), 10 (2.4%), and 8 (2.5%) patients respectively presented with restenosis. The mean time to restenosis was 11.3 ± 9.9 months. Patients’ mean age was 65 ± 11 years 75% were male, and 68% had diabetes mellitus. Unstable angina was the clinical presentation in 52 (73%). At 6 months, 3 patients had developed myocardial infarction (4.2%), repeat restenosis at follow-up was diagnosed in 8 patients (11.3%), the overall major adverse clinical events rate was 18.3% (13 patients), and 2 patients died (2.8%).

Conclusions: Drug-eluting stent-related restenosis is relatively infrequent but remains a clinical challenge. It occurs more frequently in complex lesion subsets, but the overall intermediate-term prognosis is tolerable.
 

[1] DES = drug-eluting stent

March 2009
I. Ben-Dor, H. Vaknin-Assa, E. Lev, D. Brosh, S. Fuchs, A. Assali and R. Kornowski

Background: Although unprotected left main coronary artery disease is considered by contemporary guidelines to be an indication for surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention may be necessary in patients at high surgical risk.

Objectives: To assess the outcome of angioplasty in the treatment of unprotected LMCA[1] disease.

Methods: Angiographic and clinical data were collected prospectively for all patients who underwent emergent or non-emergent (planned) therapeutic PCI[2] for unprotected LMCA disease at our center from 2003 to 2007. Baseline values were compared with findings at 1, 6 and 12 months after the procedure.

Results: The study group comprised 71 consecutive patients with a mean age of 74 ± 12 years; 63% were men, and 31% had diabetes. Forty-three patients had a planned procedure and 28 an emergent procedure. Mean EuroScore was 7.3 ± 3.6 (range 5–12). Forty-nine percent of the procedures were performed with bare metal stents and 51% with drug-eluting stents. Procedural success was achieved in 100% of cases. The overall mortality rate was 11.3% at 1 month, 18.3% at 6 months and 19.7% at 12 months. Elective PCI was associated with significantly lower mortality (2.3% vs. 25% at 1 month, 4.6% vs. 39% at 6 months and 6.9% vs. 39% at 12 months), and the use of drug-eluting stents was associated with lower rates of target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac events than use of bare metal stents (2.8% vs. 14% at 1 month, 8.3% vs. 43% at 6 and 12 months). Variables that correlated with increased mortality or MACE[3] at 6 and 12 months were cardiogenic shock, emergent PCI, ejection fraction < 35%, renal failure, distal left main stenosis location, and reference diameter < 3 mm.

Conclusions: PCI is a feasible and relatively safe therapeutic option for unprotected LMCA. The less favorable outcome of emergent compared to planned PCI is probably attributable to the overwhelming acute myocardial ischemic injury in emergent cases. The use of drug-eluting stents may improve the intermediate-term restenosis rate.




[1] LMCA = left main coronary artery

[2] PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention

[3] MACE = major adverse cardiac events
April 2007
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel