You are in:Home/Publications/COMPARISON OF CARBON ION IMPLANTED STENT WITH BARE METAL STENT IN PATIENTS WITH CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE Department of Cardiology, Bertha Faculty of Medicine Bertha University. Egypt

Prof. Elsayed Mahmoud Mohamed :: Publications:

Title:
COMPARISON OF CARBON ION IMPLANTED STENT WITH BARE METAL STENT IN PATIENTS WITH CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE Department of Cardiology, Bertha Faculty of Medicine Bertha University. Egypt
Authors: Osama sanad MD, El-Sayed Abdel Khalek MD, Khaled El-Rabat MD, Ibrahim Mansour MD and Eman S. Elkeshk MD
Year: 1950
Keywords: Not Available
Journal: Not Available
Volume: Not Available
Issue: Not Available
Pages: Not Available
Publisher: Not Available
Local/International: Local
Paper Link: Not Available
Full paper Not Available
Supplementary materials Not Available
Abstract:

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the role of the inert stents in decreasing the incidence of stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to assess the clinical outcome of these stents. Methods: The study comprised 57 patients (49 males and 8 females, mean age 53.3±0.9 years) with angiographically documented CAD. They were admitted to the Coronary care unit at Benha University Hospital and underwent stent implantation in 57 cle novo lesions. Patients were categorized into two groups; group Ifor whom the traditional bare metal Stainless-steel stents were deployed (30 lesions in 30 pts; 26 M and 4 F with a mean age of 50 yrs), group II for whom Inert stents (carbon ion implanted stents) were deployed (27 lesions in 27 pts; 23 M and 4 F with a mean age of5l yrs). Procedural success: was defined as 30 % residual stenosis post procedure. Clinical success: was defined as procedural success without the occurrence of MACE (Major Acquired Coronary Events) namely, death, myocardial infarction, or Target vessel revascularization).Clinical follow-up for the occurrence of MACE was performed one and six months after the procedure. Angiographic follow-up was done after six months or after the occurrence of any of the clinical endpoints. Results: Procedural arid clinical success were documented in 100 % of patients during hospital stay, there was no MACE in both groups. None of patients developed MACE during the 30-days follow-up period. Also, at 6- months follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the occurrence of MACE as 4 patients (13.3%) of group land 3 patients (11.1%) of group H developed MACE. Restenosis rate showed also statistically insign4ficant difference between the 2 groups (5 patients (16.7%) in; group I and 5 (18.5%) patients in group II ,P > 0.05). Conclusion: The implantation of inert stent is safe and feasible, with a high acute procedural success. These stents proved also favorable short term results regarding the thrombotic complication. Inert stent did not add any beneficial effect to the bare metal uncoated stainless-steel stents regarding 6-months in-stent restenosis

Google ScholarAcdemia.eduResearch GateLinkedinFacebookTwitterGoogle PlusYoutubeWordpressInstagramMendeleyZoteroEvernoteORCIDScopus