Long-Term Clinical Follow-up after Sirolimus-Eluting Stent versus Bare Metal Stent Implantation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background and Objective: Drug-eluting stents have been shown to reduce the incidence of restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR) compared with bare metal stents (BMSs); however, the long-term efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has not been well established. We have investigated the long-term clinical outcome of SES in patients with ACS.
Methods: Consecutive 245 patients with ACS treated by primary stenting within 24 hours after onset were enrolled. There were 128 patients treated with SES and 117 patients were treated with BMS. We evaluated the incidence of major cardiac events (MACE; total death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, TVR) at 3 years, comparing with 8-month clinical outcome.
Results: Eight-month clinical follow-up shows a significantly lower incidence of TVR in the SES group, 3.1% in the SES group versus 9.4% in the BMS group (P = 0.04). At 3-year clinical follow-up, there was no significant difference in the rate of TVR between the two groups, 8.4% versus 12.4% (P = 0.37). Cumulative incidence of total MACE was 9.2% in the SES group compared with 15.9% in the BMS group (P = 0.18). Only one case of stent thrombosis was observed in the SES (late thrombosis), while two cases of stent thrombosis occurred in the BMS group (late and very late thrombosis; P = 0.55).
Conclusion: SES implantation in patients with ACS is associated with favorable long-term clinical outcome with no excess of late stent thrombosis. Further long-term clinical follow-up will be warranted to confirm the safety and efficacy of SES.     

Incidence and predictors of target vessel revascularization and clinical event rates of the sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (results from the prospective multicenter German Cypher Stent Registry)

Randomized trials have demonstrated the ability of drug-eluting stents to decrease the risk of restenosis after coronary stent implantation. However, the incidences of major cardiovascular/cerebral adverse events (MACCEs) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) during follow-up in a routine clinical setting remain to be determined. We analyzed data of the multicenter German Cypher Stent Registry. From April 2002 to March 2003, 1,726 patients at 93 hospitals who received >/=1 sirolimus-eluting coronary stent were included. Median follow-up was 6.7 months. During follow-up, death occurred in 1.2% of patients (20 of 1,726), nonfatal myocardial infarction in 2.5% (43 of 1,706), and nonfatal stroke in 0.5% (7 of 1,469). TVR was performed in 8.6% of patients, with percutaneous coronary intervention in 7.3% and coronary artery bypass grafting in 1.5%. The overall rate of MACCEs or TVR was 10.8% (186 of 1,726). Independent predictors of TVR were the target vessel being a bypass graft (odds ratio [OR] 2.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41 to 4.18, p = 0.001), management of >1 lesion during the same intervention (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.96, p = 0.035), 2- or 3-vessel disease (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.72, p = 0.030), and age (per decade; OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98, p = 0.025). These data confirm the safety and effectiveness of using the sirolimus-eluting stent in daily clinical practice. The management of bypass grafts and multiple lesions in 1 session and the presence of multivessel disease were predictors of MACCEs or TVR.     

Comparison between sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of older patients affected by coronary artery disease: results from a single-center allcomers registry

The treatment of elderly patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is challenging because this population is complex and greatly expanding. Drug-eluting stents (DES) generally improve the outcome in high-risk cases. We evaluated the clinical impact of different first-generation DES, i.e., sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), in this context. A prospective, nonrandomized, single-center, allcomers registry consecutively enrolling all patients aged ≥75 years eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES was carried out. Only one type of DES was implanted per protocol for each patient. Two groups were identified according to the type of implanted stent, i.e., SES and PES. The primary end point encompassed major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary end point encompassed the rate of definite/probable stent thrombosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). From June 2004 to May 2008, 151 patients were enrolled. Among them, 112 (74.2%) received SES and 39 (25.8%) received PES. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar, while few angiographic features (ostial location, stent diameter, proximal reference vessel diameter) showed minor differences. At the median follow-up of 22.6 months, primary and secondary end points did not significantly differ in terms of MACE (SES 12.5% vs PES 20.5%, P = 0.3), death (SES 5.4% vs PES 7.7%, P = 0.7), myocardial infarction (SES 4.5% vs PES 10.3%, P = 0.2), TLR (SES 2.7% vs PES 2.6%, P = 1.0), stent thrombosis (SES 1.8% vs PES 5.1%, P = 0.3), and TVR (SES 1.8% vs PES 0%, P = 0.6). In this real-world population of elderly patients treated by DES–PCI for CAD, the overall efficacy and safety have been excellent in both DES, and the choice between SES and PES did not influence the clinical outcome.     

中国冠心病患者接受不同支架治疗预后的荟萃分析

目的比较中国冠心病患者置入药物洗脱支架(DES)和裸支架(BMS)或西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)和紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES)之间,临床预后的差别。方法检索数据库,纳入随访时间≥6个月的、比较DES和BMS或SES和PES的临床研究。用STATA 10.0作荟萃分析,比较不同类型支架的临床预后,包括主要心血管不良事件(MACE)、靶病变血运重建(TLR)、靶血管血运重建(TVR)、支架内血栓形成和心肌梗死的发生情况。结果共纳入文献11篇(3780例),随访时间从6个月至3年。与BMS相比,DES可减少MACE(OR=0.471,95%CI0.336～0.662,P<0.001)、减少TVR(OR=0.250,95% CI0.148～0.422,P<0.001),但支架内血栓形成在两组间差异无统计学意义。而SES与PES相比,在MACE、TLR、TVR、支架内血栓、心肌梗死方面差异均无统计学意义。结论药物洗脱支架有效性、安全性高,药物支架中,西罗莫司支架和紫杉醇支架差异无统计学意义。     

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)

     

Targeted stent use in clinical practice based on evidence from the Basel Stent Cost Effectiveness Trial (BASKET).

AIM: It is unknown which patients benefit most from drug-eluting stents (DES) against bare-metal stents (BMS) in a long-term clinical outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: To address this question, data from 826 consecutive patients with angioplasty, randomized 2:1 to DES vs. BMS, with an 18-month follow-up for cardiac death/myocardial infarction (MI) and non-MI-related target-vessel revascularization (TVR) were analysed for interactions between stent type and patient/vessel characteristics predicting events. Rates of 18-month TVRs were lower with DES vs. BMS use (7.5 vs. 11.6%, P = 0.05), but similar for both stents regarding cardiac death/MI (DES, 8.4%; BMS, 7.5%; P = 0.70). Significant interactions between stent type and two multivariable event predictors were identified: small stents (<3.0 mm) and bypass graft stenting. In these patient groups together (n = 268, 32%), DES reduced non-MI-related TVR (HR = 0.44; P = 0.02) and cardiac death/MI (HR = 0.44; P = 0.04), whereas in the other 558 patients (68%) TVR rate was similar (HR = 0.75; P = 0.38) and cardiac death/MI rate increased after DES (HR = 2.07; P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with angioplasty of small vessels or bypass grafts seem to benefit from DES use, in long-term outcome, in contrast to patients with large native vessel stenting where there might even be late harm. Still, this hypothesis needs to be tested prospectively.     

Clinical outcomes following drug-eluting versus bare metal stent implantation for lesion subsets excluded from pivotal clinical trials: findings from the GHOST Study (Guthrie Health System Off-Label StenT Study)

Objectives: We assessed outcomes of patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) vs. bare metal stent (BMS) implantation for complex lesions excluded from pivotal clinical trials of DES.
Background: Although DES improve target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to BMS in randomized trials, data on safety and efficacy of DES in complex lesions are insufficient.
Methods: In a single-center registry of 1,354 patients who underwent stent implantation for complex lesions between July 2001 and December 2005, we compared the incidence of death, death or myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis [definite or probable by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria], TVR, and MACE between patients who received DES (n = 483) versus those who received BMS (n = 871). Mean duration of follow-up was 494 versus 838 days in DES and BMS groups, respectively.
Results: Clinical outcomes in DES versus BMS groups were as follows: death 5.2% versus 11.5% (log-rank P = 0.042); death/MI 11.2% versus 16.7% (P = 0.47), stent thrombosis 2.9% versus 2.6% (P = 0.61), TVR 6.6 versus 18.5% (P < 0.0001), MACE 14.9% versus 29.7% (P = 0.0002), respectively. After adjustment for baseline differences, DES implantation was associated with lower TVR (adjusted hazards ratio HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.26–0.56, P < 0.0001) and MACE (HR = 0.56, CI 0.42–0.74, P < 0.0001) without significant impact on other outcomes. In 933 patients who underwent DES (n = 483) or BMS (n = 450) implantation in the year 2003 or later, DES implantation similarly lowered TVR and MACE without affecting other outcomes.
Conclusions: Our findings support the safety and efficacy of DES in patient subsets excluded from pivotal randomized clinical trials of DES.     

Clinical presentation and predictors of target vessel revascularization after drug-eluting stent implantation

BackgroundDrug eluting stent (DES) failure including restenosis and stent thrombosis, or disease progression may result in target vessel revascularization (TVR) but the relative contribution of these mechanisms in the DES era is not well described. We sought to examine the predictors and presentations of patients with clinically driven TVR after DES.MethodsPatients with all lesions treated with a DES in the Dynamic Registry from 2004 to 2006 were analyzed. Included were 2691 patients with 3401 lesions. Patients with and without incident clinically driven TVR at 2 years were compared according to baseline clinical, procedural, and angiographic characteristics and independent predictors of TVR and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were determined by multivariate analysis.ResultsBy 2-years, TVR occurred in 7.2% of patients and TLR in 3.8%, with 71.6% and 82.5% of repeat revascularization events occurring in the first year, respectively. The indication for first TVR was myocardial infarction in 18.6% (n = 34), unstable angina in 42.6% (n = 78), stable coronary disease in 25.7% (n = 47) and other/unknown in 13.1% (n = 24). Disease progression was responsible for 47% of TVR. Among patients with TLR, restenosis was the mechanism in 86.6% and stent thrombosis in 13.4%. Independent predictors of TVR included younger age, diabetes, attempted graft lesion, lesion length > 30 mm and prior lesion intervention. Independent predictors of TVR and TLR were similar.ConclusionThe incidence of clinically driven TVR is low in patients treated with DES and nearly half is attributable to disease progression, which along with the low rate of in-stent restenosis explains why the mode of presentation is often an acute coronary syndrome.     

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)     

Multiple overlapping drug-eluting stents to treat diffuse disease of the left anterior descending coronary artery

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of using multiple overlapping drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with diffuse left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) disease. BACKGROUND: Diffuse LAD disease represents a therapeutic challenge. Results after coronary artery bypass surgery are suboptimal, whereas the use of bare metal stents is limited by high rates of restenosis. The introduction of DES prompted treatment of long diffuse disease with multiple overlapping stents. METHODS: All consecutive patients with de novo diffuse LAD disease treated with more than 60-mm long DES from April 2002 to March 2004 were analyzed. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 66 patients. Thirty-nine patients were treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), average length 84 +/- 22 mm, and 27 patients with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), average length 74 +/- 14 mm. The number of stents implanted per patient was 2.8 +/- 0.7, whereas the mean total stent length for the LAD treatment was 80 +/- 20 mm. Angiographic as well as procedural success was achieved in 95% of cases. Eleven (16.6%) patients had in-hospital non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (five SES and six PES), and one patient developed intraprocedural stent thrombosis. All patients had clinical follow-up, and 52 patients (79%) had an angiographic follow-up at six months. Hierarchical major adverse cardiac event rate was 15% (7.5% for SES and 7.5% for PES). No patients died, one patient had non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (non-index vessel), and 10 patients (15%) underwent target vessel revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of multiple overlapping DES in patients with a diffusely diseased LAD is relatively safe and associated with good midterm clinical outcomes.     

Sirolimus, Tacrolimus and Zotarolimus eluting stents to treat bifurcated lesions: a 7-month clinical outcome comparison

AIM: Drug eluting stents (DES) have been shown to reduce restenosis compared with bare metal stents in bifurcated lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with bifurcated lesions treated by 3 different DES. METHODS: Consecutive patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease on one bifurcated lesion with SB>2.25 mm (on visual estimation) undergoing at the Department of Cardiology of the Catholic University of Rome, Italy were screened. Patients treated with Sirolimus-eluting stent (Cypher Select; SES Group), Tacrolimus-eluting stent (Taxus-Libertè; TA Group) and Zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor Driver; ZOT Group) were enrolled in the study. Clinical and angiographic characteristics of all patients were prospectively recorded. Major adverse clinical events (MACE), including death, acute myocardial infarction (MI) or target lesion revascularization (TVR) by either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary surgery were recorded during the follow-up. Incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was calculated according to the ARC criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-one consecutive patients were enrolled (89 Group CY, 98 Group TA and 54 Group EN). Length of follow-up was 235+/-60 days. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristic were similar across the groups. The adopted technique for stent implantation was provisional stenting (73.4%), T-stenting technique (7%), crush (7%) and V-stenting (2.6%). The rate of patients finally treated with two stents was similar among groups. The cumulative rate of MACE (9% SES, 12% TA, 11% ZOT: P=0.7) and of TVR (2% SES, 9% TA, 7% ZOT) was similar among groups. No definite stent thrombosis was observed during follow-up, while 1 probable stent thrombosis was observed in TA group. CONCLUSION: The clinical outcome of bifurcated lesions using DES and mainly a technique of single stent implantation is good. In the present observational study, clinical adverse events did not differ in patients with bifurcated lesions treated by Cypher, Taxus or Endeavor stent implantation.     

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.     

Comparison of three age groups regarding safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry)

Limited data exist regarding drug-eluting stent (DES) versus bare metal stent (BMS) use in older patients. From the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry, 5,089 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-treated patients were studied (October 2001 to August 2006). The differences in 1-year safety (death, myocardial infarction, and their composite) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization [TVR] with PCI and repeat revascularization) outcomes were compared between the patients who received DESs versus BMSs within each age group: <65 years (n = 2,680); 65 to 79 years (n = 1,942); ≥80 years (n = 443). No differences were found in the safety outcomes by stent type in any age group at 1 year. Regarding the effectiveness, lower rates of TVR with PCI and repeat revascularization were observed in the DES patients across all age groups. After propensity-adjusted analysis, the risk of TVR with PCI and repeat revascularization favored DES versus BMS with patients <65 years old (7.4% vs 14.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.60; 12.3% vs and 17.4%, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.84, respectively), 65 to 79 years old (4.8% vs 9.5%, HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80; and 7.6% vs 12.3%, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.88, respectively), and ≥80 years old (4.5% vs 10.4%, HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.44; and 6.0% vs 14.5%, HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40, respectively). In conclusion, significant reductions in TVR with PCI and repeat revascularization were noted in all 3 age groups without increases in death or myocardial infarction in this large multicenter PCI registry. Our data support the use of DES, regardless of age.     

Concurrent implantation of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in the same vessel.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of concurrent implantation of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting (PES) stents in the same coronary artery. BACKGROUND: When it is impossible to deliver multiple drug eluting stents (DES) of the same type, the operator must opt to implant a different DES or a bare metal stent. There are currently no published data evaluating this approach. METHODS: We identified all cases in which one or more SES and PES were implanted in either the same lesion or adjacent segments of the same vessel during a single procedure between March 2003 and March 2005. Endpoints analyzed were; in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and follow-up MACE (including stent thrombosis). RESULTS: We identified 44 patients with 89 lesions. This was a complex cohort of patients with a median of 3.5 stents implanted, 3 lesions and 2 vessels treated and a median stent length implanted of 80.5 mm, while 83% of the lesions were type B2/C. Eight patients had peri-procedural myocardial infarction. During follow-up; 1 cardiac death occurred, no patients had a myocardial infarct or stent thrombosis, 11 underwent target lesion and vessel revascularization (25%) and 13 had a major adverse cardiac event (29.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients, the concurrent use of SES and PES in the same vessel was associated with outcomes in keeping with the complexity of disease treated. Our data show that it is not unreasonable to implant different DES in the same vessel, although we would not advocate this as routine practice.     

Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in unselected patients with acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the procedural characteristics and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) vs. bare metal stents (BMS). BACKGROUND: DES have been shown to reduce the incidence of restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR) in clinical randomized studies when compared with BMS in patients undergoing elective percutaneous intervention. Limited data are available with the use of DES in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-one consecutive patients who presented with myocardial infarction between 7/2001 and 8/2005 were studied. The procedural characteristics, 30-day and 12-month outcomes of 131 patients treated with DES were compared with 130 patients treated with BMS. RESULTS: At 12-months follow-up DES therapy was associated with a substantial decrease in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (HR 0.33; P =0.002), TVR (HR 0.19; P =0.002), and recurrent myocardial infarction (HR 0.23; P =0.051) vs. BMS therapy. Coronary interventions utilizing DES were characterized by a marked increase in the number of stent per target vessel (DES: 1.9 +/- 0.9 vs. BMS: 1.38 +/- 0.6, P < 0.0001), treatment of bifurcation (DES: 21% vs. BMS: 5%, P =0.0004), and multivessel intervention (DES: 22% vs. BMS: 8%, P =0.003). CONCLUSION: The routine use of DES in acute myocardial infarction is associated with reduced rates of MACE at 12 months vs BMS, despite a higher rate of complex procedures in the DES treated patients. In addition to its anti-restenosis effect, the improved outcome of patients treated with DES may be linked to a more complete revascularization in association with prolonged clopidogrel therapy.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction Lesson from a case-controlled comparison of bare metal versus drug-eluting stents in thrombus-laden lesions

BACKGROUND: Given the encouraging results on early restenosis rate with drug-eluting coronary stents, both safety and 6 months outcomes of PCI with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in acute myocardial infarction are scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction were subjected to acute PCI with SES and compared to 50 matched control patients who received a bare metal stent (BMS). All patients were followed over 6 months; in addition repeat angiography was obtained in 88.0% of SES and 92.0% of BMS patients. As a result of matching both groups were similar with regard to demographic, clinical, and infarction characteristics, as well as procedural data and adjunctive medication. SES diameter was 3.0 +/- 0.1 versus 3.3 +/- 0.5 mm with BMS, while the length of stented segment was 24 +/- 11 mm with SES versus 16 +/- 8 mm with BMS (p<0.05). No subacute stent thrombosis occurred in either group. At 6 months, all-cause mortality was 2.0% with SES, and 4.0% with BMS (n. s.); reinfarction rate was 2.0% in both groups, but binary restenosis rate (4.0 versus 18.0%; p<0.05) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were improved with SES (2.0 versus 16.0%; p<0.05) resulting in lower MACE rate of 6.0 versus 22.0% with BMS (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Placement of SES with PCI for myocardial infarction is feasible and as safe as BMS; 6-month outcome is superior with SES due to the lower rate of both angiographic restenosis and TVR.     

Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with drug-eluting stents: insights from the first phase of the prospective multicenter german drug-eluting stent registry

Background: Controversy exists about the impact of treating bifurcations on overall outcome of coronary interventions using drug‐eluting stents (DES). We sought to investigate 1‐year outcome of the treatment of bifurcation lesions using DES in a large “real‐world” cohort. Methods and Results: Among 5,126 patients enrolled in phase I of the multicenter German Drug‐Eluting Stent Registry, 814 (16%) were treated for a bifurcation lesion. Patients with bifurcations were compared to those without bifurcations in terms of baseline characteristics, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. Usage of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) was also evaluated. In total, 1,021 and 5,189 stents were implanted in the bifurcation (1.25 stents/patient) and nonbifurcation (1.2 stents/patient) group, respectively, but 64.5% of bifurcation lesions were treated with a single stent. More complex lesion and procedural characteristics were observed in the bifurcation group. However, there was no difference in 1‐year MACCE rates (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) between the bifurcation group and nonbifurcation group (8.1% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.85). Rates of TVR (11.2% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.75) and Academic Research Consoritum‐defined definite stent thrombosis (0.9% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.67) were also comparable. MACCE and TVR rates remained similar after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. MACCE and TVR in SES patients were 7.2% and 12.6% versus 8.7% and 10.2% in PES patients (P = 0.46 and P = 0.30, respectively). Conclusion: In this large multicenter registry, treatment of bifurcation lesions with DES appears effective and safe. The presence of bifurcations did not affect 1‐year outcomes after DES implantation. The outcomes for SES and PES were similar. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:344–352)     

Comparison of long-term (seven year) outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization with versus without stenting

Coronary stents have markedly improved the short- and intermediate-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention by improving acute gains in luminal dimensions, decreasing abrupt vessel occlusion, and decreasing restenosis, yet the long-term benefit of coronary stenting remains uncertain. We examined long-term clinical outcomes of death, myocardial infarction, and repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) among patients enrolled in the Duke Database for Cardiovascular Disease who underwent revascularization with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty alone or stent placement from 1990 to 2002. Among 6,956 patients who underwent percutaneous revascularization, propensity modeling was applied to identify 1,288 matched patients with a similar likelihood to receive coronary stents according to clinical, angiographic, and demographic characteristics. Significant (p <0.05) predictors of stent placement included multivessel disease, diabetes, hypertension, recent myocardial infarction, decreased ejection fraction, and year of study entry. At a median follow-up of 7 years, although treatment with coronary stenting was associated with a significant and sustained decrease in repeat TVR (18.0% vs 28.1%, p = 0.0002) and the occurrence of death, myocardial infarction or TVR (39.2% vs 45.8%, p = 0.004), long-term survival did not significantly differ between treatment groups (19.9% vs 20.5%, p = 0.72). Outcomes of death and myocardial infarction did not significantly differ between patients who did and did not undergo repeat TVR. In conclusion, compared with angioplasty alone, revascularization with coronary stents provides a significant early and sustained decrease in the need for repeat revascularization, but stents do not influence long-term survival.     

Stenting of unprotected left main coronary artery in patients with low preoperative risk of coronary artery bypass grafting

INTRODUCTION: Available data indicate that stenting of the left main coronary artery (LMN) is safe and effective. Restenosis remains the main factor limiting the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). AIM: To evaluate immediate and long-term results of treatment of patients with LMN disease and low preoperative risk of coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: Coronary stents were implanted into LMN in 64 patients. The following strategy was applied: drug eluting stent (DES) for LMN diameter < or =3.5 mm (28 subjects) and bare metal stent (BMS) for LMN diameter >3.5 mm (36 subjects). Patients enrolled in the study underwent clinical evaluation and coronary angiography. Immediate effect of the procedure and main adverse cardiac events were assessed: death, myocardial infarction and additional target lesion or non-target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: Angiographic and clinical effectiveness of the interventions was 100%. Full revascularisation of ischaemic regions of the myocardium was performed. Mean clinical follow-up period was 9.4+/-4.0 months. Neither death nor myocardial infarction occurred. Additional PCIs were performed in 11 (17.2%) patients; however, target vessel revascularisation (TVR) rate within LMN was 9.4% (i.e. 6 subjects with BMS), and non-TVR rate was 7.8% (5 subjects). CONCLUSIONS: LMN stenting is associated with high effectiveness of PCI in patients with low operative risk. Long-term follow-up revealed low incidence of major adverse cardiac events. Strategy of selective use of DESs in the study group produced good clinical outcome. Multivessel disease with LMN stenosis was associated with high rate of additional revascularisation of other vessels. Further improvement of treatment results may be obtained by more common use of DES for multivessel disease and LMN diameters larger than 4.0 mm.