Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2016 Jun 01

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUEMINERVA CARDIOANGIOLOGICA

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

Frequency: Bi-Monthly

ISSN 0026-4725

Online ISSN 1827-1618

 

Minerva Cardioangiologica 2016 Jun 01

Radiation exposure during implantation of bioabsorbable vascular scaffolds versus drug eluting stents in non-complex coronary lesions: a matched cohort study

Benedikt SCHRAGE, Moritz SEIFFERT, Kai MüLLERLEILE, Elvin ZENGIN, Edith LUBOS, Christoph SINNING, Ulrich SCHAEFER, Karsten SYDOW, Stefan BLANKENBERG, Dirk WESTERMANN

Department of General and Interventional Cardiology, University Heart Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

BACKGROUND: Bioabsorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) are a novel option for the treatment of coronary lesions in patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. We aimed to identify the influence of BVS implantation on radiation exposure and procedural outcomes compared to drug eluting stents (DES) in daily clinical practice.
METHODS: A retrospective single-centre study was performed in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with BVS from 2013 to 2014. Only patients with exclusive BVS implantation (n = 78 procedures) were compared with a 2:1 matched cohort of exclusive DES-treated patients in the same period (n = 156 procedures). We used a four-step protocol to reduce radiation exposure in all procedures. Furthermore, a 12-month clinical follow-up was performed.
RESULTS: Patients had similar baseline characteristics due to matching. Radiation exposure (1826 vs. 2167 cGy*cm2, p=0.673), procedure time (73 vs. 65 min., p=0.574), target vessel revascularisation (1.3 vs. 1.3%, p=1.000 for PCI; 1.3 vs. 0.6%, p=0.616 for CABG), cardiovascular death (0.0 vs. 2.6%, p=0.304) or all-cause death (0.0 vs. 3.2%, p=0.172) were similar after implantation of BVS vs. DES. However, exposure to contrast agent (166 vs. 139 ml, p=0.028) was significantly higher in the BVS group.
CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of BVS in combination with a simple four-step protocol is a feasible option for interventional treatment of non-complex coronary lesions without significant impact on radiation exposure or outcome measures in daily clinical routine.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page