http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/2088/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/33679/ 2011-06-01T00:00:00Z AimsComparison of magnetic guidewire navigation in percutaneous coronary intervention (MPCI) vs. conventional percutaneous coronary intervention (CPCI) for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction.Methods and resultsWe compared 65 sequential patients (mean age 61 ± 15 years) undergoing primary MPCI with those of 405 patients undergoing CPCI (mean age 61 ± 13 years). The major endpoint was contrast media use. Technical success and procedural outcomes were evaluated. Clinical demographics and angiographic characteristics of the two groups were similar, except for fewer patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and hypertension in the CPCI group and fewer patients with diabetes in the MPCI group. The technical success rate was high in both the MPCI and CPCI groups (95.4 vs. 98). There was significantly less contrast media usage in the MPCI compared with the CPCI group, median reduction of contrast media of 30 mL with an OR 0.41 (0.210.81). Fluoroscopy times were significantly reduced for MPCI compared with CPCI, median reduction of 7.2 min with an OR 0.42 (0.200.79).ConclusionThis comparison indicates the feasibility and non-inferiority of magnetic navigation in performing primary PCI and suggests the possibility of reductions in contrast media use and fluoroscopy time compared with CPCI. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/4642/ 2004-09-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, efficacy, and costs of complete versus "culprit" vessel revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). METHODS: Patients with multivessel disease and an identified culprit vessel were randomly assigned to complete revascularization of vessels > or =50% stenoses (n = 108) versus revascularization limited to the culprit vessel (n = 111). The primary end point, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), were defined as cardiac or noncardiac death, myocardial infarction, need for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and repeat PCI up to 1 year. RESULTS: Despite equal MACE at 24 hours (6.3% vs 7.4%), strategy success was higher in the culprit vessel than in the complete revascularization group (93.7% vs 81.5%, P =.007). MACE rates at 1 month (14.4% vs 9.3%), 1 year (32.4% vs 26.9%), and 4.6 +/- 1.2 years (40.4% vs 34.6%) were similar in both groups. Repeat PCI was performed more often in the culprit vessel group (31.2% vs 21.2%, P =.06). A lower consumption of medical material was associated with lower procedural costs in the culprit vessel group (5784 vs 7315 Euros; P <.001). However, between 1 year and the end of follow-up, costs had equalized in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Complete versus culprit vessel revascularization in multivessel coronary disease treated with PCI was associated with a lower strategy success rate, similar MACE rates, and initially higher costs. However, over the long term, more repeat PCIs were conducted in patients treated by culprit revascularization only, mostly because of the need to treat lesions initially left untreated. As a consequence, incremental costs had equalized within 1 year. The decision of whether to perform culprit vessel or complete revascularization can be made on an individual basis. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/4748/ 2003-09-26T00:00:00Z Abstract OBJECTIVES: To review the currently available data from studies assessing feasibility, safety, clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of direct stenting. BACKGROUND: With technical advances of stent designs and their delivery systems a new strategy has become increasingly popular: direct stent implantation without prior balloon dilatation. METHODS: The Medline database was searched from January 1996 to March 2001 for clinical trials investigating direct stenting using the index terms direct stenting, coronary intervention, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), PCI, angioplasty and ischemic heart disease. Studies were chosen based on the number of patients involved and endpoints mentioned. Data not yet published but presented at recent international meetings were also included. A comparison between direct stenting and stenting with predilatation was performed using for the latter results of the randomized trials supplemented with Benestent II data. RESULTS: At least 26 studies have investigated direct stenting, showing high primary and final success rates with few complications. Direct stenting provides a way to reduce costs, shorten procedural and fluoroscopy times and lower material consumption. Immediate and long-term clinical outcomes appear to be similar to stenting with predilatation. Preliminary results of large randomized trials with angiographic follow-up indicate that restenosis rates are similar to those of conventional stenting strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Direct stenting compared with stenting with predilatation is feasible, safe, faster and more cost-effective. The evidence to date shows similar late outcomes. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/4737/ 2003-03-01T00:00:00Z Study objectives To compare the long-term angiographic, clinical and economic outcome of direct stenting vs stenting after balloon predilatation. Patient population and methods Four hundred patients with coronary stenoses in a single native vessel were randomized to direct stenting vs stenting after predilatation. A major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE) was defined as death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target restenosis, repeat target- and non-target vessel-related percutaneous coronary intervention, target lesion revascularization, coronary artery bypass surgery and stroke. Results Stents were successfully implanted in 98.3% of patients randomized to direct stenting vs 97.8% randomized to stenting preceded by predilatation. The primary success rate of direct stenting was 88.3%, vs 97.8% for stenting preceded by balloon dilatation . The angiographic follow-up at 6 months included 333 of the 400 patients (83%). The binary in-stent restenosis rate was 23.1% of 163 patients randomized to direct stenting vs 18.8% of 166 patients randomized to balloon predilatation . By 185±25 days, MACCE had occurred in 31 of 200 (15.5%) patients randomized to direct stenting, vs 33 of 200 (16.5%) randomized to predilatation . At 6 months, costs associated with the direct stenting strategy (Euros 3222/patient) were similar to those associated with predilatation (Euros 3428/patient, ). However, procedural costs were significantly lower. It is noteworthy that, on multivariate analysis, a baseline C-reactive protein level >10mgl−1was a predictor of restenosis (odds ratio: 2.10, ) as well as of MACCE (odds ratio: 1.94, ). Conclusions Compared to stenting preceded by balloon predilatation, direct stenting was associated with similar 6-month restenosis and MACCE rates. Procedural, but not overall 6-month costs, were reduced by direct stenting. An increased baseline CRP level was an independent predictor of adverse long-term outcome after coronary stent implantation. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/4835/ 2001-05-10T00:00:00Z OBJECTIVES: This study sought to establish whether the early favorable results in the Benestent-I randomized trial comparing elective Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in 516 patients with stable angina pectoris are maintained at 5 years. BACKGROUND: The size of the required sample was based on a 40% reduction in clinical events in the stent group. Seven months and one-year follow-up in this trial showed a decreased incidence of restenosis and clinical events in patients randomized to stent implantation. METHODS: Data at five years were collected by outpatient visit, via telephone and via the referring cardiologist. Three patients in the stent group and one in the percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) group were lost to follow-up at five years. Major clinical events, anginal status and use of cardiac medication were recorded according to the intention to treat principle. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in anginal status and use of cardiac medication between the two groups. In the PTCA group, 27.3% of patients underwent target lesion revascularization (TLR) versus 17.2% of patients in the stent group (p = 0.008). No significant differences in mortality (5.9% vs. 3.1%), cerebrovascular accident (0.8% vs. 1.2%), myocardial infarction (9.4% vs. 6.3%) or coronary bypass surgery (11.7% vs. 9.8%) were found between the stent and PTCA groups, respectively. At five years, the event-free survival rate (59.8% vs. 65.6%; p = 0.20) between the stent and PTCA groups no longer achieved statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The original 10% absolute difference in TLR in favor of the stent group has remained unchanged at five years, emphasizing the long-term stability of the stented target site. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/5047/ 1996-01-01T00:00:00Z Background The purpose of the Benestent-II Pilot Study was to evaluate the safety of delaying and eliminating anticoagulant therapy in patients receiving a heparin-coated stent in conjunction with antiplatelet drugs. Methods and Results The study consisted of three initial phases (I, II, III) during which resumption of heparin therapy after sheath removal was progressively deferred by 6, 12, and 36 hours. In phase IV, coumadin and heparin were replaced by 250 mg ticlopidine and 100 mg aspirin. Of the 207 patients with stable angina pectoris and a de novo lesion in whom heparin-coated stent implantation was attempted, implantation was successful in 202 patients (98%). Stent thrombosis did not occur during all four phases, and the overall clinical success rate at discharge was 99%. Bleeding complications requiring blood transfusion or surgery fell from 7.9% in phase I to 5.9%, 4%, and 0% in the three following phases. Hospital stay was 7.4, 6.1, 7.2, and 3.1 days for the consecutive phases. The restenosis rate for the combined four phases was 13% (15% in phase I, 20% in phase II, 11% in phase III, and 6% in phase IV). The overall rate of reintervention for the four phases was 8.9%. At 6 months, 84%, 75%, 94%, and 92% of the patients of phases I to IV, respectively, were event free. For the four phases, the event-free rate was 86%, which compares favorably with the rate observed in the Benestent-I study (80%; relative risk, 0.68 [0.45 to 1.04]). Conclusions The implantation of stents coated with polyamine and end-point–attached heparin in stable patients with one significant de novo coronary lesion is well tolerated, is associated with no (sub)acute stent thrombosis, and results in a favorable event-free survival after 6 months. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/21765/ 1995-06-14T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/4616/ 1994-01-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND. Balloon-expandable coronary-artery stents were developed to prevent coronary restenosis after coronary angioplasty. These devices hold coronary vessels open at sites that have been dilated. However, it is unknown whether stenting improves long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes as compared with standard balloon angioplasty. METHODS. A total of 520 patients with stable angina and a single coronary-artery lesion were randomly assigned to either stent implantation (262 patients) or standard balloon angioplasty (258 patients). The primary clinical end points were death, the occurrence of a cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, the need for coronary-artery bypass surgery, or a second percutaneous intervention involving the previously treated lesion, either at the time of the initial procedure or during the subsequent seven months. The primary angiographic end point was the minimal luminal diameter at follow-up, as determined by quantitative coronary angiography. RESULTS. After exclusions, 52 patients in the stent group (20 percent) and 76 patients in the angioplasty group (30 percent) reached a primary clinical end point (relative risk, 0.68; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.92; P = 0.02). The difference in clinical-event rates was explained mainly by a reduced need for a second coronary angioplasty in the stent group (relative risk, 0.58; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.85; P = 0.005). The mean (+/- SD) minimal luminal diameters immediately after the procedure were 2.48 +/- 0.39 mm in the stent group and 2.05 +/- 0.33 mm in the angioplasty group; at follow-up, the diameters were 1.82 +/- 0.64 mm in the stent group and 1.73 +/- 0.55 mm in the angioplasty group (P = 0.09), which correspond to rates of restenosis (diameter of stenosis, > or = 50 percent) of 22 and 32 percent, respectively (P = 0.02). Peripheral vascular complications necessitating surgery, blood transfusion, or both were more frequent after stenting than after balloon angioplasty (13.5 vs. 3.1 percent, P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the stent group than in the angioplasty group (8.5 vs. 3.1 days, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS. Over seven months of follow-up, the clinical and angiographic outcomes were better in patients who received a stent than in those who received standard coronary angioplasty. However, this benefit was achieved at the cost of a significantly higher risk of vascular complications at the access site and a longer hospital stay.