Restenosis rate?

thornyrose76 · Post by **thornyrose76** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:40 pm

What is the restenosis rate? Not sure if there is really an exact figure given the reality of things...

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:52 pm

Zamboni found restenosis to be 50% in the jugulars. His methods were very different than the methods in use today. He saw very little restenosis in the azygous.

There have been rumors of 1 - 2 % restenosis rates at a few centers but it's hard to evaluate those claims without follow-up.

I am hopeful for the registries, including the newly announced Hubbard patient-centric registry. We'll get more real data yet!

ikulo · Post by **ikulo** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:07 pm

Anecdotal evidence from the facebook group and TiMS suggests that the restenosis rate is much higher than just 1-2%. More and more people seem to be going in for second, third and even fourth treatments.

DrCumming · Post by **DrCumming** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:26 am

ikulo wrote:Anecdotal evidence from the facebook group and TiMS suggests that the restenosis rate is much higher than just 1-2%. More and more people seem to be going in for second, third and even fourth treatments.

Restenosis rates in veins are typically high and I believe Zamboni's estimate of 50% at one year will be shown to be about right. Exact rates will depend on the the type of lesion and location of lesion. Ie. I would expect better patency rates from treating membranes, webs and stuck valves.

Anyone quoting a 1-2% rate at one year is being misleading or not looking hard enough. I cannot think of an angioplasty or venoplasty procedure in anywhere in the body that has that low rate of restenosis.

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:54 am

The 1 - 2% was only at a few months out, not a full year, and with medical tourism, there's no follow-up or way to know if a patient has restenosed if they do not come back.

It's interesting, though, even with the bigger balloons than Zamboni used (he used 10 mm) and other methods (high pressure balloons, cutting balloons), will it still likely be 50%.... I don't know, we will find out!

I can't wait until we have more detailed information such as what you suggest: which types of lesions and where have what type of restenosis rates.

hope410 · Post by **hope410** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:35 am

Where did we get the original 1-2% restenosis rate with the use of the larger balloons, etc. anyway?

Does anyone remember the source of that original quoted low restenosis rate? Was it given during a presentation by Dr. Sinan or something, or was there another source for it?

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:49 am

I believe Dr. Sinan mentioned 2% restenosis at the July symposium. Dr. Arata was telling his patients 0% restenosis this fall but then bumped it up to 1%. These numbers would be fantastic and I find them exciting but unsupported. Hopefully the data is coming.

edited to add, here is the video of Dr. Sinan:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cChReoCFEN0

fogdweller · Post by **fogdweller** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:24 am

Cece wrote:I believe Dr. Sinan mentioned 2% restenosis at the July symposium. Dr. Arata was telling his patients 0% restenosis this fall but then bumped it up to 1%. These numbers would be fantastic and I find them exciting but unsupported. Hopefully the data is coming.

edited to add, here is the video of Dr. Sinan:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cChReoCFEN0

Dr.Harris, an associate of Dr. Arata, said that with they type of problem I had, faulty valves, they did not expect to see any restenosis. Therefore he did not think I needed to do any follow-up, maybe a check up at the 6 month point. If they are not looking at all, it is no wonder they are not seeing any. I think, (but do not know for lsure) that prior to CCSVI they were treating veins for dialyis and oncology, and that is a very differen type of problem, so maybe no restenosis there?