A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of stainless steel stents coated with turbostratic carbon and uncoated stents for percutaneous coronary interventions. | LitMetric

Background: Stent coating with turbostratic carbon was supposed to minimize the local inflammatory response after stent implantation and to thereby also reduce the rates of restenosis and clinical events.

Methods And Results: From October, 1999 to February, 2002, a total of 329 patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) eligible for single-lesion PCI were randomized for implantation of either a CarboStent (C; n = 168) or a stainless-steel stent (S; n = 161). The stainless-steel stents were Tristar stents in 60.2%, Tetra stents in 17.4% and Penta stents in 22.4%. Both groups showed no differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Angiographic follow-up (FU) was obtained after 6 months in 287 patients (87.2%), clinical FU in 295 patients (89.7%). With the exception of a smaller post-procedure minimal luminal diameter (MLD) in the C group (2.59 0.43 mm versus 2.72 0.46 mm in the S group; p = 0.01), there were no significant differences between the C and S groups in lesion length (10.28 4.45 mm versus 10.37 4.79 mm, respectively), reference diameter (2.92 0.59 mm versus 2.89 0.53 mm, respectively), pre-procedure MLD (0.77 0.36 mm versus 0.84 0.36 mm, respectively), MLD at FU (1.67 0.64 mm versus 1.68 0.57 mm, respectively), late loss (0.93 0.63 mm versus 1.05 0.59 mm, respectively), late loss index (0.51 0.32 versus 0.57 0.32, respectively) and restenosis rate (18.1% versus 20.6%, respectively). There were also no significant differences regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the C and S groups, i.e., occurrence of death (0% versus 0.7%, respectively), myocardial infarction (0% versus 0.7%, respectively), coronary artery bypass graft (0.7% versus 1.4%, respectively) and target lesion revascularization (16.4% versus 21.5%, respectively).

Conclusion: Coronary stents coated with turbostratic carbon gave no clinically relevant reduction of in-stent restenosis and MACE rates when compared to uncoated stents.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

turbostratic carbon
12
versus
12
stents
8
stents coated
8
coated turbostratic
8
uncoated stents
8
coronary artery
8
late loss
8
versus 07%
8
comparison stainless
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!