• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.109-116
• /
• 2014

Many studies have suggested that in the era of Drug-Eluting Stents(DES) are one of the causes of In-Stent Restenosis(ISR) of Stent Fracture(SF). The present study sought to evaluate clinical characteristics of patients with stent fracture after successful DES implantation. The 4,701 patients were selected for analysis who underwent a follow-up coronary angiography irrespective of ischemic symptoms. The overall incidence of SF was 32 patients(male:female=19:13, Av. age $62.44{\pm}9.8$year, 0.68%). Fractures of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents(SES), Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents(PES), Biolimus A9-Eluting Stents(BES), Everolimus-Eluting Etents(EES), Endothelial Progenitor Cell Capture Stent(EPC) and Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents(ZES) are accounted for 19(59.4%), 9(28.1%), 2(6.3%), 1(3.1%), 1(3.1%) and 0(0%) respectively. SF developed in the left Anterior Dscending(LAD) artery in 16 patients(50%) and in complex(type B2, C) lesions in 25 patients(69.4%). Ten patients were treated with heterogenous DES, the rest being treated with either homogenous DES(3 patients), plain old balloon angioplasty(3 patients), or conservative medical treatment(17 patients). None of the patients with SF suffered from cardiac death during a follow-up period of $32.9{\pm}12.4$ months. The overall rate of DES fracture over up to 3.7 years of follow-up was 0.68% with higher incidence in SES than in PES. SF frequently occurred in the LAD artery and in complex lesions. Of the patients with SF, coronary intervention was performed only when the binary restenosis lesion was significant. During the follow-up, patients with SF have continued on combination antiplatelet therapy. There is a very low rate of major adverse cardiac events(post-detection of SF), especially cardiac death associated with SF.

• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.1-5
• /
• 2006

Purpose: A proximal gastrectomy is performed for gastric cancer in the upper part of the stomach to preserve the function of the stomach after surgery. An esophagogastrostomy is one of the common reconstruction methods for a proximal gastrectomy, but this method results in a high incidence of reflux esophagitis. This study was undertaken to compare subjective and functional results between esophagogastrostomy and jejunal interposition reconstructions. Materials and Methods: From June 1998 to December 2002, proximal gastrectomies were performed in 33 patients with tumors in the upper third of the stomach; 8 had reconstruction using jejunal interposition between the esophagus and the remnant stomach (JI group) while 25 had reconstruction using esophagogastrostomy (EG group). The postroperative courses of the patients were reviewed in terms of symptoms, weight changes, and endoscopic findings. Results: The mean age of the patients was 59 years; 26 were men and 7 were women. There were no significant differences in general complications, operating times, or histologic features between the two groups. Fifty-two percent (52%) of the EG group complained of dysphagia, and 16% them experienced heartburn and acid belching. Twelve percent (12%) of the JI group complained of dysphagia, but heartburn and acid belching did not occur. Incidences of reflux esphagitis (36%) and balloon dilatation for anastomotic stricture (16%) were more common in the EG group than in the JI group (0% and 12%). Conclusion: To prevent or minimize complications, such as reflux esophagitis and postoperative symptoms, a proximal gastrectomy with a jejunal interposition is an alternative method as an organ-preserving surgical strategy to improve quality of life for patients. (J Korean Gastric Cancer Assoc 2006;6:1-5)