We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
A randomized controlled trial of a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a similar bare-metal stent in saphenous vein graft lesions the SOS (Stenting of Saphenous Vein Grafts) trial.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2009 March 18
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the frequency of angiographic restenosis and clinical events between a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and a similar bare-metal stent (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions.
BACKGROUND: There are conflicting and mostly retrospective data on outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation in SVGs.
METHODS: Patients requiring SVG lesion stenting were randomized to BMS or PES. The primary study end point was binary in-segment restenosis at 12-month follow-up quantitative coronary angiography. Secondary end points included death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target vessel and lesion revascularization, and target vessel failure.
RESULTS: Eighty patients with 112 lesions in 88 SVGs were randomized to a BMS (39 patients, 43 grafts, 55 lesions) or PES (41 patients, 45 grafts, 57 lesions). Binary angiographic restenosis occurred in 51% of the BMS-treated lesions versus 9% of the PES-treated lesions (relative risk: 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.48, p < 0.0001). During a median follow-up of 1.5 years the PES patients had less target lesion revascularization (28% vs. 5%, hazard ratio: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.74, p = 0.003) and target vessel failure (46% vs. 22%, hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.96, p = 0.03), a trend toward less target vessel revascularization (31% vs. 15%, hazard ratio: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.05, p = 0.08) and myocardial infarction (31% vs. 15%, hazard ratio: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.08, p = 0.10), and similar mortality (5% vs. 12%, hazard ratio: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.72 to 4.11, p = 0.27).
CONCLUSIONS: In SVG lesions, PES are associated with lower rates of angiographic restenosis and target vessel failure than BMS.
BACKGROUND: There are conflicting and mostly retrospective data on outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation in SVGs.
METHODS: Patients requiring SVG lesion stenting were randomized to BMS or PES. The primary study end point was binary in-segment restenosis at 12-month follow-up quantitative coronary angiography. Secondary end points included death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target vessel and lesion revascularization, and target vessel failure.
RESULTS: Eighty patients with 112 lesions in 88 SVGs were randomized to a BMS (39 patients, 43 grafts, 55 lesions) or PES (41 patients, 45 grafts, 57 lesions). Binary angiographic restenosis occurred in 51% of the BMS-treated lesions versus 9% of the PES-treated lesions (relative risk: 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.48, p < 0.0001). During a median follow-up of 1.5 years the PES patients had less target lesion revascularization (28% vs. 5%, hazard ratio: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.74, p = 0.003) and target vessel failure (46% vs. 22%, hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.96, p = 0.03), a trend toward less target vessel revascularization (31% vs. 15%, hazard ratio: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.05, p = 0.08) and myocardial infarction (31% vs. 15%, hazard ratio: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.08, p = 0.10), and similar mortality (5% vs. 12%, hazard ratio: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.72 to 4.11, p = 0.27).
CONCLUSIONS: In SVG lesions, PES are associated with lower rates of angiographic restenosis and target vessel failure than BMS.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app