Randal Rake

Bio: Randal Rake is an academic researcher from Thomas Jefferson University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Angioplasty & Stent. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 9 publications receiving 5346 citations. Previous affiliations of Randal Rake include Scripps Health & Thomas Jefferson University Hospital.

A Randomized Comparison of Coronary-Stent Placement and Balloon Angioplasty in the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract: Background Coronary-stent placement is a new technique in which a balloon-expandable, stainless-steel, slotted tube is implanted at the site of a coronary stenosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of stent placement and standard balloon angioplasty on angiographically detected restenosis and clinical outcomes. Methods We randomly assigned 410 patients with symptomatic coronary disease to elective placement of a Palmaz-Schatz stent or to standard balloon angioplasty. Coronary angiography was performed at base line, immediately after the procedure, and six months later. Results The patients who underwent stenting had a higher rate of procedural success than those who underwent standard balloon angioplasty (96.1 percent vs. 89.6 percent, P = 0.011), a larger immediate increase in the diameter of the lumen (1.72 ±0.46 vs. 1.23 ±0.48 mm, P<0.001), and a larger luminal diameter immediately after the procedure (2.49 ±0.43 vs. 1.99 ±0.47 mm, P<0.001). At six months, the patients with stented ...

Stent placement compared with balloon angioplasty for obstructed coronary bypass grafts

Abstract: Background Treatment of stenosis in saphenous-vein grafts after coronary-artery bypass surgery is a difficult challenge. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of stent placement with those of balloon angioplasty on clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with obstructive disease of saphenous-vein grafts. Methods A total of 220 patients with new lesions in aortocoronary–venous bypass grafts were randomly assigned to placement of Palmaz–Schatz stents or standard balloon angioplasty. Coronary angiography was performed during the index procedure and six months later. Results As compared with the patients assigned to angioplasty, those assigned to stenting had a higher rate of procedural efficacy, defined as a reduction in stenosis to less than 50 percent of the vessel diameter without a major cardiac complication (92 percent vs. 69 percent, P<0.001), but they had more frequent hemorrhagic complications (17 percent vs. 5 percent, P<0.01). Patients in the stent group had a larger mean (±SD...

Long-term angiographic and clinical outcome after implantation of balloon-expandable stents in aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts.

Abstract: Balloon angioplasty of aortocoronary saphenous vein graft lesions is associated with high restenosis and clinical event rates. The goal of this multicenter study was to assess long-term angiographic and clinical outcome of patients electively treated with single Palmaz-Schatz stents in aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts. In 198 patients (209 lesions), elective placement of single Palmaz-Schatz stents was attempted. Angiography was performed at baseline, immediately after stent placement, and at 6-month follow-up. Stent placement was successful in 98.5% of patients. One patient (0.5%) had stent thrombosis. Restenosis occurred in 34% (45 of 133) of the restudied lesions. Restenosis was lower in de novo lesions than in restenotic lesions (22% vs 51%, p < 0.001). Ostial lesions had a higher restenosis rate than nonostial lesions (61% vs 28%, p = 0.003). Freedom from death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass surgery, and repeat angioplasty was present in 70% of patients. Eighty-two percent of patients with de novo lesions remained event-free at 1 year, whereas only 55% of patients with prior angioplasty were event-free at 1 year (p < 0.001). The use of the Palmaz-Schatz stent for the treatment of focal, de novo, aortocoronary saphenous vein graft lesions is associated with a high procedural success rate, a low angiographic restenosis rate, and low clinical event rates, including the need for repeat revascularization. The results of this study need validation by a prospective randomized trial comparing stent implantation with angioplasty.

ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Executive summary and recommendations: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (committee on the management of patients with unstable angina)

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Unstable angina (UA) and the closely related condition non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are very common manifestations of this disease. These life-threatening disorders are a major cause of emergency medical care and hospitalizations in the United States. In 1996, the National Center for Health Statistics reported 1 433 000 hospitalizations for UA or NSTEMI. In recognition of the importance of the management of this common entity and of the rapid advances in the management of this condition, the need to revise guidelines published by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in 1994 was evident. This Task Force therefore formed the current committee to develop guidelines for the management of UA and NSTEMI. The present guidelines supersede the 1994 guidelines. The customary ACC/AHA classifications I, II, and III summarize both the evidence and expert opinion and provide final recommendations for both patient evaluation and therapy: Class I: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is useful and effective . Class II: Conditions for which there is conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of a procedure or treatment. Class IIa: Weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy. Class IIb: Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion. Class III: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that the procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful. The weight of the evidence was ranked highest (A) if the data …

Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery.

Abstract: Background Preliminary reports of studies involving simple coronary lesions indicate that a sirolimus-eluting stent significantly reduces the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary revascularization. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial comparing a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent in 1058 patients at 53 centers in the United States who had a newly diagnosed lesion in a native coronary artery. The coronary disease in these patients was complex because of the frequent presence of diabetes (in 26 percent of patients), the high percentage of patients with longer lesions (mean, 14.4 mm), and small vessels (mean, 2.80 mm). The primary end point was failure of the target vessel (a composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, and repeated percutaneous or surgical revascularization of the target vessel) within 270 days. Results The rate of failure of the target vessel was reduced from 21.0 percent with a standard stent to 8.6 percent with a sirolimus-eluting ...

A Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with a Standard Stent for Coronary Revascularization

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The need for repeated treatment of restenosis of a treated vessel remains the main limitation of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Because sirolimus (rapamycin) inhibits the proliferation of lymphocytes and smooth-muscle cells, we compared a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard uncoated stent in patients with angina pectoris. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind trial to compare the two types of stents for revascularization of single, primary lesions in native coronary arteries. The trial included 238 patients at 19 medical centers. The primary end point was in-stent late luminal loss (the difference between the minimal luminal diameter immediately after the procedure and the diameter at six months). Secondary end points included the percentage of in-stent stenosis of the luminal diameter and the rate of restenosis (luminal narrowing of 50 percent or more). We also analyzed a composite clinical end point consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and percutaneous or surgical revascularization at 1, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: At six months, the degree of neointimal proliferation, manifested as the mean (+/-SD) late luminal loss, was significantly lower in the sirolimus-stent group (-0.01+/-0.33 mm) than in the standard-stent group (0.80+/-0.53 mm, P<0.001). None of the patients in the sirolimus-stent group, as compared with 26.6 percent of those in the standard-stent group, had restenosis of 50 percent or more of the luminal diameter (P<0.001). There were no episodes of stent thrombosis. During a follow-up period of up to one year, the overall rate of major cardiac events was 5.8 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 28.8 percent in the standard-stent group (P<0.001). The difference was due entirely to a higher rate of revascularization of the target vessel in the standard-stent group. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a standard coronary stent, a sirolimus-eluting stent shows considerable promise for the prevention of neointimal proliferation, restenosis, and associated clinical events.

2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions

Abstract: Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Nancy Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA

A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease

Abstract: Background Restenosis after coronary stenting necessitates repeated percutaneous or surgical revascularization procedures. The delivery of paclitaxel to the site of vascular injury may reduce the incidence of neointimal hyperplasia and restenosis. Methods At 73 U.S. centers, we enrolled 1314 patients who were receiving a stent in a single, previously untreated coronary-artery stenosis (vessel diameter, 2.5 to 3.75 mm; lesion length, 10 to 28 mm) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. A total of 652 patients were randomly assigned to receive a bare-metal stent, and 662 to receive an identical-appearing, slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent. Angiographic follow-up was prespecified at nine months in 732 patients. Results In terms of base-line characteristics, the two groups were well matched. Diabetes mellitus was present in 24.2 percent of patients; the mean reference-vessel diameter was 2.75 mm, and the mean lesion length was 13.4 mm. A mean of 1.08 stents (length, 21.8 mm) were...