الفهرس 
Small Coronary VesselsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 168 |  |  |
| | | from | 168 | | |
Abstract
Patients were subdivided into two groups:
Group (I): Included 25 patients underwent PCI using Cobalt-Chromium alloy stent, Group (II): Included 25 patients underwent PCI using Stainless Steel Stent.
Group (I) included 20 males and 5 females with mean age of 52.3±8.1 years. Group (II) included 19 males and 6 females with mean age of 54.1±7.2 years. Variables of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of patients including (age, sex, risk factors, history of CAD, clinical exam., labs and echocardiography) as well as baseline lesion and procedural characteristics including (target lesion, TIMI flow and procedural characteristics), were similar in both groups.
1. Assessment of initial success and in-hospital prognosis
The initial success including ( device, lesion and procedure success) was 100% in both groups with no statistically significant difference between them, also no statistically significant difference between the two stents as regards in-hospital complications.
2. Assessment of Intermediate Term Prognosis
the intermediate term prognosis or the intermediate term follow up period which was from ( 3-9 months ) post procedure and included 6 months follow up coronary angiography and the occurance of primary or secondary end points. The study couldn`t be completed on 2 out of 25 patients from cobalt-chromium stent group, and 4 out of 25 from stainless steel stent group because they didn`t show up in the follow up period.
End points
Primary End Point, which was the incidence of MACE ( Death, MI, CABG and TLR ) at follow up period. There was no statistically significant difference between the two stents as regards the incidence of MACE at follow up which might be due to limitations of the study including small number of pts. and total event rate.
Secondary End Point, which was the incidence of in-stent restenosis at follow up period. there was no statistically significant difference between the two stents as regards the incidence of ISR at follow up, and this might be due to the same limitations in addition to that the number of patients who were available for follow up was more for the cobalt-chromium stent.
ISR was 13% for cobalt-chromium stent, which was much less than other studies which revealed ISR of 23-44% after stenting small coronary vessels.
Twenty pts. from cobalt-chromium stent, With a percentage of 87% of the group, and fifteen pts. from stainless steel stent, With a percentage of 71% of the group, were events-free in the follow up period, with no significant difference between the two stents regarding Event-free survival.