Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs. Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Coronary Intervention in Patients on Chronic Hemodialysis
-
- Sakakibara Takashi
- Cardiovascular Center, Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital Department of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine
-
- Ishii Hideki
- Department of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine
-
- Toriyama Takanobu
- Cardiovascular Center, Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital
-
- Aoyama Toru
- Cardiovascular Center, Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital
-
- Takahashi Hiroshi
- Cardiovascular Center, Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital
-
- Kamoi Daisuke
- Cardiovascular Center, Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital
-
- Kawamura Yoshihiro
- Cardiovascular Center, Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital
-
- Kawashima Kazuhiro
- Cardiovascular Center, Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital
-
- Yoneda Kohei
- Cardiovascular Center, Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital
-
- Amano Tetsuya
- Department of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine
-
- Tanaka Miho
- Cardiovascular Center, Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital Department of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine
-
- Yoshikawa Daiji
- Department of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine
-
- Hayashi Mutsuharu
- Department of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine
-
- Matsubara Tatsuaki
- Department of Internal Medicine, School of Dentistry Aichi-Gakuin University
-
- Murohara Toyoaki
- Department of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine
Search this article
Abstract
Background: Even in the drug-eluting stent era, adverse cardiac events, including restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), have been more frequently seen in patients on hemodialysis (HD) than in non-HD patients. The objective of this study was to compare the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for prevention of adverse cardiac events, including restenosis, in HD patients. Methods and Results: A total of 100 consecutive patients on HD who underwent PCI were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SES or EES. Although there was no difference between the 2 groups in baseline patient and lesion characteristics, the angiographic restenosis rate at 8-month follow-up was 21.2% in the SES group and 8.7% in the EES group (P=0.041). Significant differences were also seen in % diameter stenosis (%DS), minimal lumen diameter, and late lumen loss at 8-month follow-up (P=0.0024, P=0.0040, and P=0.033, respectively). During the 1-year follow-up, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 11 (22.0%) patients in the SES group and in 5 (10.0%) patients in the EES group (P=0.10). Conclusions: The use of EES was as safe as that of SES. Moreover, EES significantly prevented restenosis in patients on maintenance HD compared with SES. (Circ J 2012; 76: 351-355)<br>
Journal
-
- Circulation Journal
-
Circulation Journal 76 (2), 351-355, 2012
The Japanese Circulation Society
- Tweet
Details 詳細情報について
-
- CRID
- 1390282680078974208
-
- NII Article ID
- 10030035554
-
- NII Book ID
- AA11591968
-
- COI
- 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XjtFajtL0%3D
-
- ISSN
- 13474820
- 13469843
-
- PubMed
- 22130317
-
- Text Lang
- en
-
- Data Source
-
- JaLC
- Crossref
- PubMed
- CiNii Articles
- KAKEN
-
- Abstract License Flag
- Disallowed