Real World,Long‐Term Outcomes Comparison Between Paclitaxel‐Eluting and Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent Platforms

We compare real‐world, extended target vessel revascularization (TVR)‐free survival following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients receiving either sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) following an index drug‐eluting stent (DES) supported procedure. We analyzed 2,363 consecutive patients having first DES‐supported PCI at receiving PES (n = 1,012) or SES (n = 1,332) from April 2004 to July 2006. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics and in‐hospital outcomes were recorded during the time of the index procedure and extended clinical outcomes data were obtained thereafter. TVR and all cause mortality were identified during the study period. Adjusted Kaplan‐Meier and Cox's proportional hazard survival methods were performed. TVR‐free survival at 2.3 years was 91.3% for SES compared with 88.9% for PES (P = 0.06). Kaplan‐Meier survival curves did not significantly differ (adjusted hazard ratio ?1.39 [95% CI 0.99–1.97]) between the SES and PES patient cohorts. TVR was similar between the stent platforms at one (96.6% for SES [95% CI 95.3–97.6] vs. 95.7% for PES [95% CI 94.1–96.9]) and two (95.0%[95% CI 93.0–96.4] for SES vs. 93.7% for PES [95% CI 91.6–95.3]) years. Overall survival at 2 years was 96.2% for SES (95% CI 94.7–97.3) and 95.3% for PES (95% CI 93.7–96.5). SES and PES drug‐eluting stent platforms have good and similar extended outcomes in this real world registry of unselected patients having PCI. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:167‐175)     

Long‐Term Clinical Outcomes of the One‐Stent Technique versus the Two‐Stent Technique for Non‐Left Main True Coronary Bifurcation Disease in the Era of Drug‐Eluting Stents

Background

Few studies have compared the long‐term major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) between the one‐stent technique (stenting only the main branch) and the two‐stent technique (stenting of both the main and side branches) for the treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions in the drug‐eluting stent era. Therefore, we investigated this issue using the large nationwide coronary bifurcation registry.

Methods

The 1,147 patients with non‐left main coronary true bifurcation lesions underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in the Korea Coronary Bifurcation Stent (COBIS) registry. All patients were stratified based on the stent placement technique: one stent (n = 898) versus two stents (n = 249). MACE, including death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat vessel and lesion revascularization (TVR and TLR), were evaluated.

Results

The median follow‐up duration was 20 months. The MACEs did not differ between the 2 groups. Findings from the one‐stent group were similar to those of the two‐stent group in composite of death, MI, or TVR, based on analysis by crude, multivariate Cox hazard regression model, inverse‐probability‐of‐treatment weighting (hazard ratio [HR] 0.911, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.614–1.351; HR 0.685 95% CI 0.381–1.232; HR 1.235, 95% CI 0.331–4.605, respectively). In further analysis with propensity score matching, the overall findings were consistent.

Conclusions

The findings of the present study indicate that the one‐stent technique was not inferior to the two‐stent technique for the treatment of non‐left main true coronary bifurcation lesions in terms of long‐term MACEs. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:245–253)

     

First‐in‐Man Study of Dedicated Bifurcation Sirolimus‐eluting Stent: 12‐month Results of BiOSS LIM® Registry

Objectives

The aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety profile of a new dedicated bifurcation stent ‐ sirolimus‐eluting BiOSS LIM® (Balton, Poland) in 12‐month Registry.

Background

The optimal approach to coronary bifurcations treatment by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been still a subject of debate. Dedicated bifurcation stents are one of the proposed solutions.

Methods

This was the international, 3‐center registry, which enrolled patients with non‐ST‐elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE‐ACS) and stable angina. Provisional T‐stenting was the obligatory strategy of the treatment. Angiographic control was planned at 12 months. The primary endpoint was cumulative rate of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months.

Results

A total of 60 patients with coronary bifurcations were enrolled (mean age 66.4 ± 11 years, 28.3% of female). There were 21.7% of patients with NSTE‐ACS, 78.3% with hypertension, 38.3% with diabetes, 28.3% had previous MI, and 46.7% and 10% underwent prior revascularization, respectively, PCI and coronary artery bypass graft. The device success rate was 100%. Side branch was treated with an additional classical drug‐eluting stent implantation in 23.3% of cases. At 12 months, the cumulative major adverse cardiovascular events rate was 11.7%. During follow‐up (11 ± 1 months) there was 1 non‐cardiac death (1.7%), 1 non‐ST‐elevated myocardial infarction (1.7%) due to restenosis and no case of stroke or in‐stent thrombosis. Overall TLR was 8.3% (clinically driven TLR – 1.7%, angiographically driven – 6.6%). Mean late lumen loss was as follows: In main vessel – 0.35 ± 0.33 mm, in main branch – 0.34 ± 0.27 mm and in side branch – 0.18 ± 0.38 mm.

Conclusion

Dedicated bifurcation stent BiOSS® LIM proved to be feasible device, with promising safety and long‐term clinical effectiveness in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, including distal left main stem stenosis. (J Interven Cardiol 2015;28:51–60)

     

Stent Thrombosis Following 2 Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantations for Coronary Bifurcation Lesion: A Single‐Center Analysis

Background: The incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) following 2 drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantations for coronary bifurcation lesions needs to be identified. Methods: From April 2004 to April 2009, 705 consecutive patients with true bifurcation lesions who underwent a double stenting procedure with DES at the Fu Wai Hospital were analyzed. Results: Six (0.85%) patients had a definite ST, all of them had an early (4 acute and 2 subacute) definite ST. Probable ST occurred in 4 patients; in all of these cases, the event occurred early and was adjudicated because of the occurrence of sudden death within 30 days of the procedure. Therefore, a total of 10/705 (1.42%) patients had a definite or probable ST. Possible stent thrombosis was adjudicated only in 1 patient 371 days after the initial PCI in whom the cause of death was unexplained. Compared to the patients without definite and probable ST, patients with definite and probable ST were older, had more unstable angina, lower LVEF, and more left main bifurcation lesions (63.2 ± 8.9 vs. 56.8 ± 10.9 yrs; P = 0.049, 100% vs. 64.7%; P = 0.018, 50.6 ± 9.9 vs. 60.3 ± 12.4%; P = 0.019 and 70.0% vs. 36.1%; P = 0.043). Logistic analysis results indicated that only LVEF (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87–0.93; P = 0.017) was associated with definite and probable ST. Conclusions: The present study indicates that modern 2‐DES technique for bifurcation lesions was comparatively safe with a low incidence of ST. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:346–351)     

Everolimus‐Eluting Stents Versus Sirolimus‐ or Paclitaxel‐Eluting Stents: Two‐Year Results from the Guthrie Health Off‐Label Stent (GHOST) Registry

Objectives

We sought to compare the safety and effectiveness of everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) versus first generation drug‐eluting stents (FG‐DES; sirolimus‐eluting stent [SES] or paclitaxel‐eluting stent [PES]).

Methods

In 2,126 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we compared the 2‐year incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) between the EES versus FG‐DES groups. Secondary end‐points included all‐cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), death or MI, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, including death, MI, ST, or TVR). Further, we evaluated these end‐points in 2 propensity‐matched subgroups: EES versus SES; EES versus PES.

Results

Complete 2‐year follow‐up was available in 1,911 (90%) patients. Compared to FG‐DES, implantation of EES was associated with trends towards lower ST (0.9% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.068) and TVR (3.8% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.052), which persisted after adjustment for baseline differences (for ST, adjusted hazard ratio, HR 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.10–1.02, P = 0.053; for TVR, HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.22–0.75, P = 0.004). Compared to SES, EES implantation was associated with lower TVR and a trend towards lower ST. Compared to PES, EES implantation was associated with less ST and TVR and trends towards lower death/MI and MACE. In the EES group, no ST was seen after the first 3 months.

Conclusions

The use of EES compared to FG‐DES appears to be associated with reductions in ST and TVR at 2‐year follow‐up. Improved outcomes with EES are observed in comparison with SES as well as PES. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:153–162)

     

Same or Different Drug‐Eluting Stent Re‐Implantation for Drug‐Eluting Stent Restenosis: An Assessment Including Second‐Generation Drug‐Eluting Stents

Objectives

We examined the long‐term outcomes of implanting a different type of drug‐eluting stent (DES), including second‐generation DES, for treatment of DES‐in stent restenosis (ISR).

Background

Treatment for DES‐ISR has not been standardized.

Methods

The subjects were 80 patients with 89 lesions underwent DES implantation for DES‐ISR. The patients were divided into the group of patients receiving the same DES for DES‐ISR (Homo‐stent: 24 patients, 25 lesions) and a different DES for DES‐ISR (Hetero‐stent: 56 patients, 64 lesions). The primary endpoint was survival free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The secondary endpoint was late loss at 8–12 months follow‐up. In the subgroup of patients who were treated with second‐generation DES for DES‐ISR, we also assessed the survival free of MACE.

Results

During a mean follow‐up of 45.1 ± 21.2 months, 26 patients experienced MACE. There was no significant difference in the survival free of MACE (Log rank P = 0.17). In the sub‐analysis of second generation DES, MACE was significantly higher in the Homo‐stent group compared to the Hetero‐stent group (Log rank P = 0.04). Late loss was significantly higher in the Homo‐stent group than in the Hetero‐stent group (0.86 ± 1.03 vs. 0.38 ± 0.74 mm, P = 0.03). This trend was prominent in the first‐generation DES group.

Conclusions

Although there was no significant difference in MACE between the Hetero‐stent and the Homo‐stent groups including both first and second‐generation DES, the sub‐analysis demonstrated different DES implantation for DES‐ISR significantly improved the MACE rate among patients treated with second‐generation DES. (J Interven Cardiol 2016;29:311–318)

     

Combined Paclitaxel‐Eluting Balloon and Genous Cobalt–Chromium Alloy Stent Utilization in De Novo Coronary Stenoses (PEGASUS)

Objectives

The aim of this study was to examine the angiographic result and its outcome predictors using the combination of paclitaxel‐eluting balloon (PEB) and Genous stent.

Background

This approach to treat coronary stenoses is a logical strategy to strike a balance between minimizing restenosis and stent thrombosis.

Methods

From November 2010 to June 2012, 40 symptomatic patients with 44 de novo coronary lesions of diameter stenosis ≥50% were treated with the combination of PEB and Genous stents. Angiographic and clinical follow‐up were intended at 6 and 9 months, respectively.

Results

The mean age of patients was 61 ± 11 years, with male predominance (83%). Diabetes mellitus and end‐stage renal failure on peritoneal dialysis were found in 15 (38%) and 10 (25%) patients, respectively. Patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for 5.1 ± 1.5 months post procedure. The size and length of PEB used was larger than the stents (3.13 ± 0.46 mm and 28 ± 9 mm vs. 2.98 ± 0.36 mm and 23 ± 7 mm). Restudy angiography was performed on 41 (95%) lesions in 37 (93%) patients at 5.9 ± 1.7 months. Angiographic restenosis was seen in 5 (12%) lesions, and significantly associated with diabetes mellitus and dialysis dependency; the late lumen loss was 0.38 ± 0.37 mm. At 9‐month follow‐up, no stent thrombosis was observed.

Conclusions

The use of PEB combined with Genous stent is associated with a reasonably low restenosis and late lumen loss, whereas diabetes mellitus and renal failure with dialysis are poor predictors of angiographic restenosis.

     

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Optimal Stent Strategy in Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Stenting

Objectives

This study sought to investigate the long-term clinical effects of stent generation and stent strategy for left main coronary artery (LMCA) bifurcation lesion treatment.

Comparison between Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty and Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation for the Treatment of Stent Fracture

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stent fracture (SF).

Background

SF has been reported as a predictor of in‐stent restenosis (ISR) and stent thrombosis (ST).

Methods

Between January 2009 and December 2012, consecutive SF cases treated with either drug‐eluting stent (DES) or plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The study endpoints were all‐cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), ST, re‐stent fracture (re‐SF), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as the composite of cardiac death, MI, and TLR.

Results

Of 135 SF cases, 67 (49.6%) cases were treated with DES, whereas 68 (50.4%) cases with POBA. Median follow‐up period was 1,401 (IQR: 967–1,771) days. The estimated MACE rate at 3 years was significantly lower in the DES group as compared with the POBA group largely driven by less TLR (25.7 vs. 55.8%, P < 0.001). Moreover, 1‐year landmark analysis after PCI for SF revealed that MACE continued to occur even after 1 year irrespective of the treatment option (P = 0.47). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, POBA and large post‐procedure angle (Δ) defined as the degree difference between the end systolic and diastolic angle were identified as independent predictors for TLR.

Conclusions

DES implantation for SF is associated with better clinical outcomes as compared to POBA alone, due to a lower need for TLR. Large post‐procedural angle (Δ) appears to be an independent predictor of TLR.

     

Comparison of Clinical Results Following the Use of Drug‐Eluting Balloons for a Bare‐Metal Stent and Drug‐Eluting Stent Instent Restenosis

Background

Drug‐eluting balloons (DEBs) have emerged as a potential alternative to current treatments of instent restenosis (ISR). The study aims to investigate the clinical outcomes of a DEB angioplasty to treat bare‐metal stent (BMS) ISR and drug‐eluting stent (DES) ISR at 1‐year clinical follow‐up period.

Methods

Between November 2011 and December 2014, 312 patients were diagnosed with coronary artery ISR at our hospital. A total of 426 coronary ISR lesions were treated with DEBs. The clinical outcomes, including target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, and all‐cause mortality were compared between the BMS‐ISR group and DES‐ISR group. Propensity score matched analysis was used to minimize bias.

Results

The average age of the patients was 64.99 ± 10.35 years, and 76.9% of the patients were male. After multivariate Cox regression analyses about 1‐year recurrent restenosis in DES‐ISR group, only end stage renal disease (ESRD) (P = 0.047) and previous DEB failure (P < 0.001) were identified with significant difference. After propensity score matched analysis, the bias of baseline characteristics showed no significant difference. The DES‐ISR group experienced more myocardial infarctions (2.8% vs 8.3%, P = 0.075), more TLR (8.1% vs 15.4%, P = 0.051), especially at nonostial lesion (5.7% vs 14.9%, P = 0.030) than the BMS‐ISR group. Higher incidence of major cardiac cerebral adverse events happened in the DES‐ISR group. (11.7% vs 22.1 %, P = 0.038)

Conclusion

During the 1‐year follow‐up period, DEBs angioplasty for BMS‐ISR had better clinical outcomes and less TLR than DES‐ISR. ESRD and previous DEB failure were associated to TLR in DES‐ISR group.

     

Nine‐Month Angiographic and Intravascular Ultrasound Outcomes After Resolute Zotarolimus‐Eluting Stent Implantation for the Treatment of In‐Stent Restenosis

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the mid‐term outcomes of resolute zotarolimus‐eluting stent (R‐ZES) implantation for in‐stent restenosis (ISR).

Background

There has been a paucity of data regarding the effects of new‐generation drug‐eluting stent to treat ISR.

Methods

From 2009 to 2010, a total of 98 patients with 98 ISR lesions were prospectively enrolled after R‐ZES implantation for the treatment of ISR. Among 98 patients, 73 patients underwent follow‐up angiography at 9 months. Serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) at both postprocedure and 9 months was evaluated in 55 patients. The overlapped segment of R‐ZES was defined as the portion of R‐ZES superimposed on previous stent.

Results

Late loss and binary restenosis rate were 0.3 ± 0.5 mm and 5.5% at 9 months. On IVUS, the percentage of neointimal volume and maximum percentage of neointimal area were 3.9 ± 6.3% and 17.3 ± 15.5%, respectively. There was no significant change of vessel volume index between postprocedure and 9 months (16.9 ± 4.7 mm³/mm vs. 17.1 ± 4.6 mm³/mm, P = 0.251). Late‐acquired incomplete stent apposition was observed in 5 (5/55, 9.1%) cases. Compared with nonoverlapped segments of R‐ZES, the overlapped did not show larger neointimal volume index (0.3 ± 0.5 mm³/mm vs. 0.2 ± 0.3 mm³/mm, P = 0.187) on 9‐month IVUS. During follow‐up (median, 353 days), repeat target‐lesion revascularization was performed in four cases, but there were no death or stent thrombosis.

Conclusions

This study suggested that R‐ZES implantation for the treatment of ISR was effective up to 9 months and showed favorable vascular responses on serial IVUS assessment.