Restenosis in gold-coated renal artery stents

Brian W. Nolan*, Marc L. Schermerhorn, Richard J. Powell, Erin Rowell, Mark F. Fillinger, Eva M. Rzucidlo, Mark C. Wyers, David Whittaker, Robert M. Zwolak, Daniel B. Walsh, Jack L. Cronenwett

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

44 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Gold coating improves stent visibility under fluoroscopy. This is particularly valuable for precise stent placement during renal artery stenting (RAS). There is conflicting evidence regarding restenosis with gold-coated stents. To evaluate the effect of gold coating on restenosis after renal stenting, we reviewed the results of all patients undergoing RAS in our practice. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing RAS between June 2000 and September 2003 was performed. During this time, both gold-coated and stainless steel stents were used. Restenosis (>60% diameter) was determined by serial follow-up duplex exams (peak systolic velocity >180cm/s and renal-aortic ratio >3.5). Restenosis rates were determined by using the Kaplan-Meier life-table method. Variables potentially affecting restenosis were evaluated with the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: RAS was performed in 97 arteries (78 patients). Gold-coated (NIRoyal) stents were placed in 59 arteries (48 patients). Stainless steel stents (Corinthian, Genesis, and Herculink) were placed in 38 arteries (34 patients). Patient demographics, indication for treatment, technical success, and complications did not differ between gold and stainless steel stent groups. Mean follow-up was 15 months for gold-coated stents and 18 months for stainless steel stents (NS). By life-table method, 1-year and 2-year freedom from restenosis rates were 84% and 78% in arteries treated with stainless steel stents versus 69% and 39% in those treated with gold-coated stents (P = .012, log-rank test). By multivariate analysis, only the use of gold-coated stents (P = .018; hazard ratio [HR], 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 8.7) and bilateral disease (P = .046; HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.02 to 5.2) predicted restenosis. Stent diameter, patient demographics, and indication for RAS had no effect on restenosis by univariate analysis. According to American Heart Association criteria, 87% of patients in the stainless steel group had improved blood pressure at 1 year, compared with 77% in the gold-coated stent group (Kaplan-Meier; P = .042, log-rank test). There were no significant differences in the effect of RAS on serum creatinine levels between the two groups. Conclusion: Gold-coated renal stents had a substantially higher rate of restenosis than stainless steel stents in our series. These findings have led us to abandon the use of gold-coated stents for RAS. Patients who have received gold-coated stents for the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis should be followed closely for evidence of restenosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)40-46
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume42
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2005

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Restenosis in gold-coated renal artery stents'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this