Abstract
The paclitaxel-eluting Taxus-Express stent is superior regarding angiographic and clinical outcome compared with its bare-metal platform for lesions in native coronary arteries. We studied the potential impact of the Taxus-Express stent in comparison with its bare-metal counterpart for treatment of lesions in saphenous vein grafts (SVGs). Furthermore, a meta-analysis was performed regarding use of drug-eluting (DES) vs bare-metal stents (BMS) in SVG lesions. We analyzed 13 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous revascularization in SVG lesions using the slow-release, paclitaxel-eluting Taxus-Express stent. These lesions were balanced with 26 patients with SVG lesions treated with the bare-metal Express stent (BMS) in the preceding period. Angiographic follow-up was performed after 6 months, clinical follow-up after 6 and 12 months. There were no statistically significant differences regarding clinical, procedural and angiographic parameters pre and post intervention. Binary restenoses occurred significantly less in the Taxus group compared with the BMS group (0% vs 34.6%; p=0.016). This translated into a significantly lower occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, repeat target vessel revascularization) in the Taxus group compared with the BMS group at the 6-month (0% vs 26.9%, p=0.039) and 12-month follow-up (7.7% vs 38.5%, p=0.045). Multivariate predictors for freedom of binary restenosis were the reference diameter pre intervention and treatment with Taxus stents. Meta-analysis including 280 DES and 256 BMS patients revealed an odds ratio of 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.21-0.54) for MACE and 0.26 (95% confidence interval 0.16-0.44) for target vessel revascularizations, both favoring DES. We conclude that the use of the slow-release Taxus-Express stent has the potential to be superior regarding angiographic and clinical outcome compared with its bare-metal counterpart for treatment of SVG lesions within a 12-month follow-up. A large, randomized trial including a long follow-up period is now required to prove the results of the meta-analysis.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
