Total amount: € 0,00
HOW TO ORDER
A Journal on Heart and Vascular Diseases
Official Journal of the Italian Society of Angiology and Vascular Pathology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,752
Minerva Cardioangiologica 2012 December;60(6):573-80
Short and long term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stent and bare metal stent in patients with chronic kidney disease
Resmini C., Di Cuia M., Ballocca F., D’Ascenzo F., Bollati M., Moretti C., Omedè P. L., Sciuto F., Gaita F., Sheiban I. ✉
Division of Cardiology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
AIM: Coronary artery disease represents the most important cause of mortality and morbidity in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Despite continuous improvements in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), CKD is still associated with more adverse events after PCI. We performed a retrospective study to compare bare metal stents (BMS) versus drug eluting stents (DES) in CKD.
METHODS: We included consecutively all patients undergoing PCI at our Centre from July 2002 to December 2005 with CKD, defined as creatinine clearance <60 mL/min. Patients who received only DES were compared to those who received only BMS. The primary end-point was the long-term rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, i.e. the composite of death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization).
RESULTS: We included a total of 219 patients with CKD out of a total of 2354 patients, with 164 receiving BMS and 55 DES. After a mean follow up of 48 months, the MACE rate was significantly higher in BMS group (71% versus 38%, P<0.001). A similarly increased risk with BMS was found for death (45% versus 17%, P<0.001), whereas the rates for repeat coronary revascularization, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were not significantly different. Multivariable analysis showed that BMS vs.. DES implantation was not statistically significant associated with MACE, death, myocardial infarction, rePTCA or stent thrombosis.
CONCLUSION: Compared with BMS, use of DES in patients with CKD is safe and effective in reducing adverse outcomes. However, differences found between groups in clinical end-point could be ascribed to selection bias and confounding factors.