Retroinfusion‐supported stenting in high‐risk patients for percutaneous intervention and bypass surgery: Results of the prospective randomized myoprotect I study
- 23 June 2004
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wiley in Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
- Vol. 62 (3) , 323-330
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20060
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess event‐free survival and total treatment costs of retroinfusion‐supported stenting in high‐risk patients compared to bypass surgery. An increasing number of patients with main‐stem and main‐stem‐equivalent stenosis are treated by stent implantation, which appears to be safe in the short‐term follow‐up. However, there is a lack of randomized studies comparing conventional bypass surgery with stent implantation, particularly in patients with high risk for both treatments. We here report on the 1‐year results of a prospective randomized single‐center study in patients with symptomatic main‐stem and main‐stem‐equivalent lesions with substantially increased risk for bypass surgery. Patients where randomized to undergo either percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty/stent procedure (n = 23) or bypass surgery (n = 21). Patients randomized to stent implantation were supported by selective pressure‐regulated retroinfusion of the anterior cardiac vein during ischemia. Patients of the stent group and the bypass group did not differ in baseline characteristics, including Parsonnet score and quality‐of‐life score. Twenty‐eight‐day mortality and 1‐year mortality rate as well as quality‐of‐life scores were similar in both groups. Event‐free survival after 1 year was higher in the bypass group (71.4% vs. 52.3%; P = 0.02) due to a lower target lesion revascularization rate. With regard to total treatment costs, however, the stent group compared favorably to the bypass group (9,346 ± 807 vs. 26,874 ± 3,985 euro), predominantly as a result of a shorter intensive care and hospital stay. In this first randomized study in high‐risk patients for stent implantation and bypass surgery, patients with retroinfusion‐supported stent implantation had a similar 1‐year outcome and quality of life compared to patients with bypass surgery. Though in the stent group event‐free survival was lower and target lesion revascularization rate was higher, retroinfusion‐supported stent implantation was associated with substantially lower costs and might be considered as an alternative treatment option in this selected group of high‐risk patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004;62:323–330.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Sirolimus-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of In-Stent RestenosisCirculation, 2003
- Angiographic Findings of the Multicenter Randomized Study With the Sirolimus-Eluting Bx Velocity Balloon-Expandable Stent (RAVEL)Circulation, 2002
- Coronary restenosis elimination with a sirolimus eluting stent; First European human experience with 6-month angiographic and intravascular ultrasonic follow-upEuropean Heart Journal, 2001
- Comparison of Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery and Stenting for the Treatment of Multivessel DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Unprotected left main coronary artery stentingJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2001
- The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database: Current Risk AssessmentThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1997
- Clinical usefulness of risk-stratified outcome analysis in cardiac surgery in New JerseyThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1996
- Outcome as a function of annual coronary artery bypass graft volumeThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1996
- Protection against ischemia during prolonged balloon inflation by distal coronary perfusion with use of an autoperfusion catheter or fluosolJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1992
- Percutaneous support devices for high risk or complicated coronary angioplastyJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1991