4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy: A Single-Center Experience

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 1286-1290

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.03.065

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objecive. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy represents an accelerated form of obstructive coronary disease. It is the main cause of late death following heart transplantation. Percutaneous coronary intervention is considered a palliative procedure due to high restenosis rates. The aim of this study was to review our experience with percutaneous coronary interventions using stents in cardiac transplant recipients. Methods. The present analysis included all primary adult heart transplanted patients who had been discharged from the hospital after transplantation, had a clinical follow-up of 12 months and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Results. Seventy heart transplanted patients underwent percutaneous revascularization. Our analysis comprised 85 first-vessel procedures resulting in treatment of 135 lesions. The mean time from heart transplantation to first intervention was 9.3 +/- 4.8 years. Primary success was obtained in 96% lesions; at least 1 recurrent stenosis event occurred in 16 patients with primarily successful PCI. Lesions treated with drug-eluting stents experienced recurrent stenosis in 16% of cases. During a mean follow-up after PCI of 45.2 +/- 41.7 months, 27 deaths (19 cardiac) and 1 late re-transplantation occurred after PCI. Conclusion. In cardiac transplant recipients, percutaneous coronary intervention with stents can be performed safely with high rates of primary success. Restenosis rates were higher compared with coronary interventions in native coronary arteries. Drug-eluting stents seemed to favorably impact restenosis compared with bare-metal stents. The clinical benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention may be reduced due to disease progression in untreated coronary segments.

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

4.1
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