4.4 Article

Primary Use of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in the Infrapopliteal Arteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDOVASCULAR THERAPY
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 480-487

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1583/10-3073.1

关键词

peripheral vascular occlusive disease; infrapopliteal arteries; sirolimus-eluting stent; balloon angioplasty; critical limb ischemia; intermittent claudication

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To report 12-month outcomes following application of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in infrapopliteal arteries in patients with chronic limb ischemia. Methods: A prospective single-center study was conducted involving 146 consecutive patients (102 men; mean age 73 9 years) with Rutherford-Becker categories 2 to 5 lower limb ischemia who underwent SES placement. The average degree of stenosis at baseline was 86%+/- 5%; there were 44 (30%) occlusions. The main study endpoint was the 1-year primary patency rate, defined as freedom from in-stent restenosis (luminal narrowing >= 70%) detected with angiography or, if appropriate, with duplex ultrasound. Secondary endpoints included the 6-month primary patency rate, secondary patency rate, ankle-brachial index (ABI), and changes in the Rutherford-Becker classification. Results: Fifteen (10%) patients were lost to follow-up, and 27 (18%) patients died during the follow-up period, leaving 104 patients undergoing the 6- and 12-month follow-up examinations. After 6 months and 1 year, the primary patency rates were 88.5% and 83.7%, respectively. The mean ABI increased from 0.6 +/- 0.4 at baseline to 0.8 +/- 0.2 after 6 months and remained significantly improved during 1-year follow-up (p<0.0001). The mean Rutherford-Becker classification decreased from 3.3 +/- 0.8 at baseline to 0.9 +/- 1.1 (p<0.0001) after 1 year. Conclusion: Treatment of infrapopliteal arteries with SES yields encouraging long-term results that compare favorably with previously published data on bare metal stents or plain balloon angioplasty. J Endovasc Ther. 2010;17:480-487

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据