Intravascular ultrasound evaluation after sirolimus eluting stent implantation for de novo and in-stent restenosis lesions.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) on neointimal growth and vessel remodelling for in-stent restenosis versus de novo coronary artery lesions using serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 86 patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) (n=41) or de novo lesions (n=45) treated with SES and evaluated by IVUS post-procedure and at follow-up. One 18-mm SES was used for de novo lesions while 16 patients with ISR received >1SES (total stented length 17.9 mm vs 22.0 mm respectively; P=0.004). At follow-up, no differences were observed between the ISR and de novo groups with respect to changes in the mean external elastic membrane (1.7% vs 1.3%; P=0.53), plaque behind the stent (1.2% vs 3.4%; P=0.49), and lumen areas (0.7% vs 1.9%; P=0.58). No positive remodelling or edge effect was observed. A gap between stents was observed in two patients with ISR, where more prominent, though non-obstructive, neointimal proliferation was noted. CONCLUSION: Sirolimus-eluting stenting is equally effective at inhibiting neointimal proliferation in de novo and ISR lesions without inducing edge restenosis or positive vascular remodelling.     

Sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in comparison with balloon angioplasty for treatment of in-stent restenosis.

This study evaluated the acute and follow-up effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and nonpolymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in comparison will balloon angioplasty for treatment of complex in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions. Drug-eluting stents have been demonstrated to be highly effective for treatment of de novo lesions. The use of drug-eluting stents for treatment of complex ISR is less well defined. Eighty one lesions with in-stent restenosis (lesion length < 30 mm in a native coronary artery) were treated with either PTCA alone (n = 26 lesions in 25 patients), PES (n = 27 lesions in 24 patients; Achieve, Cook; 3,1 mug paclitaxel/mm(2) nonpolymer-based coating), SES (n = 28 lesions in 28 patients; Cypher, Cordis; 140 mug sirolimus/cm(2) metal surface area). Nine-month MACE rates were 32%, 8%, and 14% (all due to repeated revascularization procedures, except one death in the SES group) in the PTCA, PES, and SES group, respectively. Postintervention minimal lumen diameter in stent was significantly greater in the SES and the PES group in comparison with the PTCA group (2.37 +/- 0.26, 2.54 +/- 0.42, 1.78 +/- 0.23 mm; P < 0.001). At 6-month angiographic follow-up, late loss in stent was 0.77 +/- 0.45, 0.43 +/- 0.53, and 0.29 +/- 0.52 mm for the PTCA, PES, and SES group, respectively (P = 0.005). In-lesion restenosis rate was 61% for the PTCA group, 20% for the PES group, and 13% for the SES group (P = 0.042). The implantation of SES as well as nonpolymer PES proved to be effective for treatment of ISR. The combination of improved acute gain and reduced late loss results in a significantly improved angiographic follow-up result in comparison with PTCA.     

Drug-Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis and Acute Myocardial Infarction

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains the "Achilles' heel" of percutaneous stent angioplasty treatment of patients with atherosclerotic disease of the coronary arteries. Recently, drug-eluting stents (DES) have ushered in a revolution in the treatment of these patients, yet, to date, their efficacy and safety have been demonstrated primarily for native de novo coronary lesions. For ISR, intracoronary brachytherapy using beta- or gamma-radiation is considered the standard of care. Nevertheless, DES are used for ISR lesions in clinical practice. This review outlines the few results currently available from small observational studies and larger registries. The designs of two ongoing randomized trials evaluating the sirolimus-eluting and the paclitaxel-eluting stent versus brachytherapy in patients with ISR lesions are also presented. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have mostly been investigated in the context of small, uncontrolled studies and registries. The incomplete evidence to date is that implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with AMI is safe and effective.     

Very long sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for de novo coronary lesions

Long-length stenting has a poor outcome when bare metal stents are used. The safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in long lesions has not been evaluated. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical and angiographic outcomes of SES implantation over a very long coronary artery segment. Since April 2002, all patients treated percutaneously at our institution received a SES as the device of choice as part of the Rapamycin Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry. During the RESEARCH registry, stents were available in lengths of 8, 18, and 33 mm. The present report includes a predefined study population consisting of patients treated with >36-mm-long stented segments. Patients had a combination of >or=2 overlapping stents at a minimum length of 41 mm (i.e., one 33-mm SES overlapping an 8-mm SES) to treat native de novo coronary lesions. The incidence of major cardiac adverse events (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) was evaluated. The study group comprised 96 consecutive patients (102 lesions). Clinical follow-up was available for all patients at a mean of 320 days (range 265 to 442). In all, 20% of long-stented lesions were chronic total occlusions, and mean stented length per lesion was 61.2 +/- 21.4 mm (range 41 to 134). Angiographic follow-up at 6 months was obtained in 67 patients (71%). Binary restenosis rate was 11.9% and in-stent late loss was 0.13 +/- 0.47 mm. At long-term follow-up (mean 320 days), there were 2 deaths (2.1%), and the overall incidence of major cardiac events was 8.3%. Thus, SES implantation appears safe and effective for de novo coronary lesions requiring multiple stent placement over a very long vessel segment.     

Gender-specific outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the impact of gender on outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention using sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). BACKGROUND: Although gender-specific differences in outcome after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS) have been described, there are no data assessing outcomes of women treated with SES. METHODS: We performed a patient-level pooled analysis from 4 randomized SES versus BMS trials (RAVEL [Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with a Standard Stent for Coronary Revascularization], SIRIUS [SIRolImUS-coated Bx Velocity balloon expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions], E-SIRIUS [Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries], and C-SIRIUS [Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with long de novo lesions in small native coronary arteries]) and analyzed outcomes as a function of gender. RESULTS: Of 1,748 patients, 1,251 were men and 497 were women. A total of 878 patients were randomized to SES (629 men and 249 women), and 870 patients were randomized to BMS (622 men and 248 women). Compared with men, women were older and more frequently had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and congestive heart failure. Although overall clinical outcomes were similar in both genders, treatment with SES was associated with significant (p < 0.0001) reductions in rates of in-segment binary restenosis both in women (6.3% vs. 43.8%) and in men (6.4% vs. 35.6%), resulting in a significant reduction in 1-year major adverse cardiac events, driven by a lower incidence of target lesion revascularization/target vessel revascularization in both genders. By multivariable analysis, female gender was not an independent predictor of in-segment binary restenosis or clinical outcomes regardless of stent type. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, despite less favorable baseline clinical and angiographic features in women compared with men, the angiographic and clinical benefits of SES were independent of gender.     

Decreased risk of stent fracture‐related restenosis between paclitaxel‐eluting stents and sirolimus eluting stents: Results of long‐term follow‐up

Objective: To compare the outcomes between paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) for the treatment of drug‐eluting stent (DES) fracture. Background: DES fracture is considered as an important predictor of in‐stent restenosis (ISR). However, little data are available evaluating the optimal treatment for this complication of coronary stenting. Methods: From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008, patients with DES ISR treated with a second DES were identified and evaluated for stent fracture. Stent fracture was defined by the presence of strut separation in multiple angiographic projections, assessed by two independent reviewers. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 6 and 12 months were the primary end points. Results: Of 131 lesions with DES ISR treated with a second DES, we found 24 patients (24 lesions, 18.2%) with angiographically confirmed stent fracture. Of these, 20 patients (20 lesions) treated with either PES (n = 11/55%) or SES (n = 9/45%) were included in the study. TLR at 6 months occurred in 9% of patients treated with PES and 22% of those treated with SES (P = 0.41). After 12 months, TLR was 9% and 55.5%, respectively (P = 0.024). Conclusions: This study demonstrates a high incidence of stent fracture in patients presenting with DES ISR in need of further treatment with another DES. The suggested association between treatment of stent fracture‐associated DES ISR with PES as compared with SES, and better long‐term outcomes, is in need of confirmation by larger prospective registries and randomized trials. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉支架内再狭窄和冠状动脉原发病变的随访研究

目的:比较药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗早期(≤1年)、晚期(1年)支架内再狭窄病变(ISR)与冠状动脉原发病变(De novo)患者的长期临床疗效。方法:收集自2008年10月至2011年12月,北京安贞医院因ISR接受DES置入治疗并完成临床随访的患者资料,根据DES术后发生ISR的时间是否1年分为早期ISR组与晚期SR组。选择同期因冠状动脉原发病变(De novo)置入DES治疗的部分患者作为冠状动脉原发病变组(De novo组)。比较三组患者术后1年的主要不良心血管事件[MACE,包括全因死亡、心肌梗死(MI)和靶病变再次血运重建(TLR)]。结果:早期ISR组入选患者80例,晚期ISR组入选患者124例,De novo组入选患者494例。早期ISR组和晚期ISR组糖尿病患病率明显高于De novo组,差异有统计学意义(36.3%vs.41.1%vs.27.1%,P0.01);早期ISR组不稳定型心绞痛比例明显低于晚期ISR组和De novo组,差异有统计学意义(27.5%vs.63.7%vs.70.6%,P0.01);其余基线资料差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。三组在病变部位、病变类型及病变长度方面比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05),而早期ISR组与晚期ISR组直径明显小于De novo组,差异有统计学意义[(2.71±0.36)vs.(2.68±0.41)vs.(3.08±0.54)mm,P0.01)]。早期ISR组MACE发生率明显高于晚期ISR组与De novo组(30%vs.15.3%vs.14.2%,P0.01),其中早期ISR组TLR明显高于晚期ISR组与De novo组,差异有统计学意义(26.3%vs.12.1%vs.10.7%,P0.01),而晚期ISR组与De novo组比较差异无统计学意义(15.3%vs.14.2%,P0.05)。结论:DES治疗ISR患者安全有效,但治疗早期ISR组病变TLR发生率高于晚期ISR组及De novo病变。     

Long‐Term Outcomes of Drug‐Eluting Stent Therapy for In‐Stent Restenosis Versus De Novo Lesions

Background

Drug‐eluting stents (DES) are currently the most popular treatment modality for restenosis in bare metal stents and DES. This study compares risks of adverse cardiovascular events between DES‐treated in‐stent restenosis (ISR) and de novo lesions, an area that has not been systematically studied thus far.

Methods and Results

One thousand three hundred consecutive ISR patients were compared with 27,211 patients with de novo lesions who underwent DES treatment during the same period at the Fu Wai Hospital in Beijing. Angiographic success rate was similar between the ISR and de novo groups (98.0% vs. 98.2%; P = 0.61). Using logistic regression to derive the propensity score model, 1,266 matched patient pairs were compared. In this adjusted model, the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was significantly higher in the ISR group (19.19% vs. 2.37%; P < 0.01) during an average 17‐month follow‐up, while rates of cardiac death and myocardial infarction (MI) were similar (0.71% vs. 0.79%; P = 0.93 and 3.48% vs. 1.26%; P = 0.13, respectively) between groups. In multivariate regression analysis, ISR was predictive of TLR, but not of cardiac death and MI.

Conclusion

Compared with those with de novo lesions, patients with ISR had a higher revascularization rate after DES treatment but no significant difference in rates of cardiac death and MI.

     

Comparison of sirolimus versus paclitaxel eluting stents for treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis

In patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) inside bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents reduce the recurrence of restenosis compared with balloon angioplasty. However, few data are available about this therapeutic modality in the case of diffuse restenosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the immediate and mid-term outcome of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in diffuse ISR and determine the predictors of clinical and angiographic restenosis recurrence. A series of 161 consecutive patients with 194 diffuse ISR lesions (>10 mm) treated with drug-eluting stent implantation were evaluated. Major adverse cardiac events were defined as death, myocardial infarction, and the need for target lesion revascularization. During a mean follow-up of 8.2 +/- 3.4 months, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 19% in the SES group and 24% in the PES group (p = 0.56). Angiographic follow-up was performed in 80% of the lesions. The overall restenosis rate was 22% and was not significantly different between lesions treated with sirolimus-eluting (20%) or paclitaxel-eluting (25%, p = 0.55) stents. The incidence of restenosis was higher in diabetics (32%) than in nondiabetics (16%, odds ratio 2.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 5.5, p = 0.02). By multivariate analysis, diabetes was confirmed to be the only independent predictor of recurrent restenosis (odds ratio 3.53, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 9.02, p = 0.008). In conclusion, drug-eluting stent implantation for diffuse ISR is associated with acceptable clinical and angiographic results. The association of diffuse restenosis and diabetes mellitus is an unfavorable condition leading to a high risk of recurrence.     

Intracoronary radiation therapy for multi-drug resistant in-stent restenosis: initial clinical experience.

While randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the excellent efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for de novo lesions, the optimal treatment for SES-restenosis is not known. Management may include stand-alone balloon angioplasty, repeat SES implantation, or placement of a drug-eluting stent (DES) with an alternative antiproliferative agent (i.e., a paclitaxel-eluting stent, PES). The appropriate management strategy for recurrent restenosis after PES implantation for SES restenosis is even less clear. We report the initial clinical experience with intracoronary radiation therapy (ICRT) for multi-DES resistant restenosis. We performed ICRT in five patients with recurrent restenosis after treatment with both SES and PES. Over a median follow-up of 256 days (range 75-489 days), one patient had a target lesion revascularization at 182 days and subsequently died at 483 days following the procedure. Our findings support the further study of this management approach.     

Clinical outcome following aleatory implantation of paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents in complex coronary lesions

We compared the clinical efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) in a contemporary cohort of patients who had complex lesions. We collected data on 9-month outcomes in 529 patients (281 in the PES group and 248 in the SES group) whose de novo lesions were treated with drug-eluting stents. The end point was per-patient in-hospital and follow-up major adverse cardiac events, which were defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, including target lesion revascularization. There were no in-hospital deaths or repeat revascularizations; however, 5.7% of the PES group and 2% of the SES group developed a myocardial infarction (p = 0.04). At a median follow-up of 10.6 months, the rate of major adverse cardiac events was similar between groups (18.1% vs 21%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.25), without any difference in the occurrence of death or myocardial infarction. Diabetes and total stent length were independent predictors of major adverse cardiac events. Propensity analysis confirmed the similarity between devices (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.25). Most restenoses were focal and only 2 patients required surgical revascularization. In conclusion, implantation of drug-eluting stents in complex lesions was associated with favorable results and most patients remained free from surgical revascularization at follow-up. Overall, the 2 available stent platforms had similar performance characteristics.     

Comparable clinical outcomes with paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents in unrestricted contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in a contemporaneous cohort of real-world patients. BACKGROUND: A number of randomized comparisons of PES and SES have shown unequivocal advantages for SES in angiographic end points such as late loss. However, the data on clinical outcomes are less consistent. METHODS: All consecutive patients successfully treated with only SES or PES in de novo native vessel lesions between March 2003 and March 2005 were analyzed. Our end points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). We also analyzed late loss and angiographic restenosis. RESULTS: There were 609 patients (1,064 lesions) treated with PES and 674 patients (1,205 lesions) treated with SES. Diabetes mellitus was present in 26.8% of patients and multivessel disease in 75% of patients. Bifurcations made up 16.3% of lesions, chronic occlusions 9.5%, left main 4.8%, and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology type B2/C 75.4%. Despite a higher late loss in the PES group (p = 0.0001), there were no differences in angiographic restenosis (PES 18% vs. SES 17.8%, p = 0.95), TLR (PES 11.9% vs. SES 11%, p = 0.47), or MACE (PES 21.3% vs. SES 21.1%, p = 0.95). The relative risk of MACE for the PES group was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 1.33). Multivariable analysis confirmed the lack of association of stent type with MACE (odds ratio 1.03 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.38], p = 0.83) and TLR (odds ratio 1.08 [95% CI 0.81 to 1.44], p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In this complex cohort, both stent platforms demonstrated similar clinical outcomes despite different late loss.     

What is the best contemporary treatment for in-stent restenosis?

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenging problem in percutaneous coronary intervention and the optimal treatment strategy remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the 18 month clinical outcomes in patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with vascular brachytherapy (VBT) for the treatment of ISR. Twenty-five consecutive patients treated with VBT were compared with 29 patients who had SES deployment for ISR. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as a combination of death from cardiac causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or repeat TVR. At 18 month follow-up, the MACE rate was significantly lower in the SES compared with the VBT group (14% vs 40%, P=.03). One patient in the VBT group developed late stent thrombosis (at 10 months) and died; there was no stent thrombosis in the SES group. This observational study, taken with other recent reports, offers further credence to the use of SES for ISR. The results of randomized comparisons with VBT are awaited with interest.     

Drug-eluting stents show delayed healing: paclitaxel more pronounced than sirolimus.

AIMS: To understand wound healing after drug-eluting stents (DES) placement in humans, we studied the histology of in-stent restenosis (ISR) tissue obtained by atherectomy from bare metal stents (BMS) and DES in comparison with de novo atherosclerosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: The tissue was retrieved from ISR in ten sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and nine paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), six BMS, and nine stenotic de novo atherosclerotic lesions and processed for histology and immunocytochemistry. Patients with ISR in PES showed a significantly higher incidence of unstable angina upon presentation for re-intervention (P = 0.046). De novo tissue tended to be more collagen rich, whereas ISR tissue tended to be more proteoglycan rich. In all groups, cell content consisted almost exclusively of smooth muscle cells. Histology showed that fibrinoid in ISR tissue was present only in DES (P = 0.004), as late as 2 years following DES placement, indicating a persistent incomplete healing response. The amount of fibrinoid, given as a percentage of total tissue in each atherectomy specimen, was greater in PES than in SES (17 vs. 5%, P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: ISR in DES shows incomplete neointimal healing as late as 2 years after implantation. Patients with ISR in PES presented with more unstable angina and showed more pronounced signs of delayed healing than SES.     

Effect of Type 2 Diabetes on Results of Endovascular Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease With Drug Covered Stents (Results of 1 Year Follow-up)

Aim of the study was to determine the impact of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) on clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing coronary revascularisation. The study enrolled 99 diabetic patients with de novo lesions in native coronary arteries. Medically treated DM was present in 61 patients (62%), 7 (7%) of whom required insulin. 53 patients received 78 SES and 46 patients received 57 bare metal stents. The differences in clinical outcomes between diabetic patients treated with SES and bare metal stents were assessed. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularizations, and recurrences of angina were analyzed at 12-month follow-up. In the SES group the rate of recurrence of angina was 17%, the rate of coronary artery bypass surgery was 3,8%, the rate of repeat coronary angioplasty was 5,7%. In the bare metal stent group the rate of recurrence of angina was 37,8%, the rate of coronary artery bypass surgery was 2,2%, the rate of MI was 4,4%, the rate of repeat coronary angioplasty was 22,2%. Implantation of SES in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus reduces recurrence of angina and major adverse cardiac events during first year after coronary angioplasty.     

Effectiveness of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with a prior history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with a history of previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with an increased rate of subsequent adverse events compared to those without prior CABG. We evaluated the impact of utilizing the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in this high-risk population. METHODS: Since April 2002, SES implantation was utilized as the default strategy for all percutaneous procedures in our hospital. Consecutive patients with a history of previous CABG and de novo lesions (n=47) treated exclusively with SES, were compared to 66 patients who received bare stents in the 6-month period just before SES introduction. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups (SES and bare stent) with respect to baseline clinical or lesion characteristics. The only difference between the groups related to the nominal diameter of stent utilized, which was smaller in the SES group than the bare stent group. (The maximum diameter of SES available was 3.0 mm). At 1 year, the cumulative incidence of major adverse events (defined as death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) was significantly lower in the SES group than the bare stent group [8.5 versus 30.3%, hazard ratio 0.37 (95% confidence interval 0.15-0.91); P=0.03]. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of the sirolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous intervention in a high-risk population with a history of previous CABG surgery is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year.     

Two-year outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: results from the Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in de Novo Native Coronary Lesions (SIRIUS) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the two-year clinical outcomes in patients enrolled in the Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Lesions (SIRIUS) study. BACKGROUND: The SIRIUS study was a double-blinded randomized study which demonstrated that sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) significantly improved angiographic results (at 8 months) and clinical outcomes (at 9 and 12 months) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). METHODS: Patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions randomized to either SES (533 patients) or control BMS (525 patients) were followed for two years. RESULTS: Between one and two years, there were infrequent additional clinical events that were equally distributed between the sirolimus and control groups. After two years, target lesion revascularization was 5.8% and 21.3% in SES and control patients, respectively (p < 0.001), and major adverse cardiovascular events and target vessel failure rates were 10.1% versus 24.4% and 12.0% versus 26.7%, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both). There were no differences in death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes two years after implantation of SES continue to demonstrate significant reduction in the need for repeat target lesion (and vessel) revascularization compared with BMS without evidence for either disproportionate late restenosis or late stent thrombosis.     

Primary and mid-term outcome of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation with angiographic guidance alone

BACKGROUND: Usefulness and efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for the implantation of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) is controversial. We investigated the primary and mid-term results of SES deployment with angiographic guidance comparing with IVUS guidance, retrospectively. METHODS AND RESULTS: SESs were deployed in 480 de novo lesions of 459 patients (341 lesions treated without IVUS and 139 lesions treated using IVUS); 368 lesions underwent follow-up coronary angiography. Late luminal loss, in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate and target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate were not significantly different between the non-IVUS group and the IVUS group. There was no acute thrombosis or other major adverse cardiac events except for TLR in both groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that SES implantation without IVUS was not an independent risk factor for restenosis. On the other hand, in one case, target-vessel revascularization was difficult because of the mal-apposition of the SES previously implanted without IVUS. CONCLUSIONS: For lesions for which stent size and endpoint are decided from angiographic information alone, angio-guided SES implantation is safe and provides a good mid-term outcome that is comparable to the IVUS-guided SES stent deployment., while IVUS may be helpful to decide stent size for complex lesions and reduce possible complications.     

Angiographic patterns of drug-eluting stent restenosis and one-year outcomes after treatment with repeated percutaneous coronary intervention

Patterns of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and outcomes after treatment have not been studied systematically in all comers. We compared patterns of ISR and outcomes of repeated percutaneous coronary intervention in consecutive patients with DES-ISR. A total of 137 patients with 182 lesions underwent repeated percutaneous coronary intervention for DES-ISR at Columbia University Medical Center from August 2004 to April 2006. DES-ISR was treated with repeated DES placement in 84% of patients and balloon angioplasty in 16%. There was 1 stent thrombosis at 30 days, and at 1 year, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 10% of patients, driven primarily by an 8% rate of target-lesion revascularization. After exclusion of 12 patients with multiple ISR lesions, data were further analyzed from 125 patients with 152 DES-ISR lesions, of which 118 were originally treated with sirolimus-eluting stents and 34 were treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES-ISR). Baseline features were well matched between the 2 groups, except that patients with PES-ISR were older. A focal pattern of ISR was observed in 69.5% of patients overall. However, patients originally treated with a PES had a significantly higher frequency of diffuse-intrastent ISR in comparison with sirolimus-eluting stent ISR (30.3% vs 13.6%, p = 0.03). In conclusion, the pattern of ISR in most DES-ISR in this unselected patient population was focal, with higher rates of diffuse intrastent restenosis seen with PES-ISR. Treatment with either repeated DES implantation or balloon angioplasty for DES-ISR was safe and associated with low overall rates of target-lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiac events at 1 year.     

Clinical outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for de novo saphenous vein graft lesions.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of patients undergoing sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for de novo lesions within saphenous vein grafts (SVGs). Although the incidence of restenosis following sirolimus-eluting stenting (SES) of native coronary arteries is low, the efficacy of SES to treat de novo lesions within SVGs has not been well studied. A total of 35 patients underwent SES implantation of 39 lesions during 36 procedures. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 6 months following the index procedure. The mean bypass graft age was 10.1 +/- 6.5 years (range, 0-23 years). In-hospital major adverse cardiac events [death, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization (TVR)] occurred in four patients (11%). Clinical follow-up was obtained in 100% of patients (mean follow-up, 7.5 +/- 2.2 months). There was one cardiac death, presumed due to stent thrombosis. TVR occurred in only two patients (6%). Myocardial infarction (MI) occurred in four patients (11%), all attributable to a nontarget vessel. The combined endpoint of death, MI, or TVR occurred in seven patients (20%). Freedom from death, nonfatal MI, thrombosis, or any revascularization was 65%. Early experience indicates sirolimus-eluting stents for de novo saphenous vein graft lesions have a low (6%) rate of clinically driven target vessel revascularization. By 7-month follow-up, event-free survival is limited primarily by disease in nontarget vessels.