Comparison of sirolimus‐eluting stent,paclitaxel‐eluting stent,and bare metal stent in the treatment of long coronary lesions

Objective: This study compared the efficacy of the sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), the paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES), and the bare metal stent (BMS) for long coronary lesions. Background: The outcome of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in long coronary lesions remains unclear. Methods: The study involved 527 patients with de novo long coronary lesions (≥24 mm), which were treated with long (≥28 mm) SESs (223 lesions), PESs (194 lesions), or BMSs (201 lesions). Results: Lesions in the SES (36.0 ± 14.9 mm, P < 0.001) and PES (36.3 ± 14.5 mm, P < 0.001) groups were longer than those in the BMS group (32.0 ± 12.3 mm), meaning the two DES groups had longer stented segments than did the BMS group. Six‐month angiographic follow‐up showed the SES (9.3%, P < 0.001) and PES (21.3%, P < 0.001) groups had lower in‐segment restenosis rates than that of the BMS group (42.5%). The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 9 months was higher in the BMS group (26.6%) than that in the SES (13.0%, P < 0.001) and PES (15.7%, P < 0.001) groups. Posthoc analysis of the two DES groups showed that the in‐segment restenosis rate was lower for the SES than that for the PES group (P = 0.002), while the MACE rate was similar. Conclusions: The use of DESs for long coronary lesions appears to be safe and more effective than the use of BMSs in terms of restenosis and adverse clinical events. SES use was associated with lower late luminal loss and a lower angiographic restenosis rate compared with PES use. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound follow up of paclitaxel‐ and sirolimus‐eluting stent after poststent high‐pressure balloon dilation: From the poststent optimal stent expansion trial

Objectives : The aims of this study were to identify the efficacy of optimal stent expansion (OSE) according to the Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in Coronaries Study (MUSIC Study) criteria in drug‐eluting stent (DES) and compare paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) to sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES). Background : Although poststent high‐pressure balloon dilatation is proposed after bare metal stent implantation according to OSE, defined by the criteria of the MUSIC Study, very little data are available in DES. Methods : Two hundred fifty patients (M:F = 149:101; age, 61.5 ± 9.2 years) who underwent 9‐month follow‐up angiography in the Poststent Optimal Stent Expansion Trial (POET) were included in this study. We assessed angiographic in‐stent restenosis (ISR) and neointima volume (NV) using IVUS at 9 months. Results : At 9‐month follow up, there were no significant differences in ISR and NV index (NV/stent length, mm²) between patients with and without OSE. However, the rate of ISR and NV index were higher in PES [ISR: 18 (13.7%) and 4 (3.4%), P = 0.004; NV index: 1.02 ± 0.99 mm² and 0.21 ± 0.37, P < 0.001 in PES and SES]. Conclusions : OSE according to the MUSIC Study criteria was not related to ISR and NV in the DES era but PES had a significantly higher ISR rate and NV than SES after poststent high‐pressure balloon dilatation. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.

     

Impact of a prolonged delivery inflation time for optimal drug‐eluting stent expansion

Purpose: We examined the importance of prolonged inflation time for optimal sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) expansion. Methods: Eighty‐one de novo lesions deployed single SES or PES between April 2007 and March 2008 were divided into four groups; group 1: 21 SES deployed at 20 atm × 60 sec, group 2: 20 SES deployed with 2‐step inflation at 20 atm × 60 sec following 20 atm × 20 sec, group 3: 20 PES deployed same as group 1, group 4: 20 PES deployed same as group 2. The minimal lumen diameter (MLD) and stent expansion ratio (SER; stent cross‐ sectional area at lesion/balloon cross‐sectional area which was calculated according to the compliance chart at the same atmosphere as stent deployment) were compared between group 1 and group 2 in SES, between group 3 and group 4 in PES. Results: The MLD of post 60 sec was significantly higher than that of post 20sec (2.84 ± 0.28 mm in group 1, 2.76 ± 0.33 mm in group 2 vs. 2.54 ± 0.33 mm in group 2; P = 0.003, 0.045, respectively and 2.94 ± 0.28 mm in group 3, 3.00 ± 0.34 mm in group 4 vs. 2.69 ± 0.35 mm in group 4; P = 0.022, 0.007, respectively). The SER of post 60 sec was significantly higher than that of post 20 sec (79.3% ± 8.5% in group 1, 80.8% ± 7.8% in group 2 vs. 71.1% ± 10.2% in group 2; P = 0.014, 0.011, respectively and 81.1% ± 7.9% in group 3, 84.3% ± 9.9% in group 4 vs. 72.6% ± 10.5% in group 4, P = 0.011, 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: The prolonged delivery inflation for 60 sec may result in a more optimal stent expansion. It is therefore considered to be a useful method for deploying drug‐eluting stent. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of Sirolimus‐ and Paclitaxel‐Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Meta‐analysis of Randomized Trials

Background

It has been reported that sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) have been more effective than bare‐metal stents in reducing restenosis and cardiac events in a broad range of patients with coronary artery disease. However, it is unknown whether there might be differences between these two drug‐eluting stents in terms of efficacy and safety in the setting of acute ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Hypothesis

The aim of the present study was to compare SES with PES in patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

The published research was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from January 2001 to February 2010. Internet‐based sources of information on the results of clinical trials in cardiology were also searched.

Results

A total of 4 randomized trials were included in the present meta‐analysis, involving 1105 patients (550 in the SES group, 555 in the PES group). SES were significantly more effective in the reduction of angiographic binary (≥50%) restenosis (4.0% vs 9.6%, odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.74, P = 0.004) compared to PES. The differences between SES and PES were not statistically significant with respect to target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction.

Conclusions

SES are superior to PES in reducing the incidence of restenosis in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI, with nonsignificant differences in terms of TVR, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

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)     

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.     

Prospective randomized comparison of sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for the treatment of acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness of the Sirolimus‐ (SES) and Paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) in primary angioplasty for acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background: It has been reported that SES and PES have been more effective than bare‐metal stents in reducing restenosis and cardiac events in a broad range of patients with coronary artery disease. However, it is unknown whether there may be differences between these two drug‐eluting stents in terms of efficacy in the setting of acute STEMI. Methods: Acute STEMI patients (n = 308) undergoing primary angioplasty were randomly assigned to SES (n = 154) or PES (n = 154) deployment. The routine angiographic follow‐up was performed at 6 months and clinical follow‐up data was obtained at 12 months. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Results: The baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Two patients (all from the PES group) experienced stent thrombosis (1 acute and 1 subacute). The SES group revealed lower in‐segment restenosis (5.9% vs. 14.8%, P = 0.03) and in‐segment late loss (0.09 ± 0.45 vs. 0.33 ± 0.68 mm, P = 0.002) than PES group on follow‐up angiography. Twelve‐month TLR rates (2.6% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.17) were similar between two groups. MACE rates were lower in the SES group than in the PES group, but it did not reach statistical significance (5.8% vs. 11.7%, P = 0.07). Conclusion: In the setting of primary angioplasty for STEMI, there were no statistically significant differences between the SES and the PES in terms of 12‐month MACE. However, binary angiographic in‐segment restenosis and in‐segment late loss were significantly lower in the SES group. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Novel bioabsorbable salicylate‐based polymer as a drug‐eluting stent coating

Background: Permanent polymers used in current drug‐eluting stents (DES) can trigger chronic inflammation and hypersensitivity reactions, which may contribute to the increased risk of late thrombosis and rebound restenosis. Therefore, optimal polymer selection and the use of completely absorbable but biocompatible polymers are expected to minimize these risks. Objectives: We sought to evaluate a novel, potentially innately anti‐inflammatory, bioabsorbable salicylate‐based polymer as a DES coating, in a clinically relevant animal model. Methods: Four types of stents were implanted in pig coronary arteries using QCA to optimize stent apposition: bare metal stents (BMS); salicylic acid/adipic acid bioabsorbable polymer‐only coated metal stents (SA/AA); biostable polymeric sirolimus‐eluting stents (Cypher?); and metal stents coated with salicylic acid/adipic acid bioabsorbable polymer containing sirolimus (SA/AA + S). The dose density of sirolimus was 8.3 μg/mm of stent length (similar to Cypher?) with in vitro studies demonstrating elution over 30 days and complete polymer degradation in 37 days. Animals underwent angiographic restudy and were terminated at 1 month for complete histopathologic and histomorphometric analyses. Results: Both SA/AA + S and Cypher? stents had significantly lower angiographic % stenosis when compared with BMS and SA/AA polymer‐only groups (6 ± 4% and 5 ± 4% vs. 15 ± 7% and 16 ± 5%, respectively, P < 0.001). Intimal thickness was lower for SA/AA + S and Cypher? than for BMS (0.14 ± 0.06 and 0.13 ± 0.04 mm vs. 0.23 ± 0.05 mm, respectively, P < 0.001). Histologic % area stenosis was also lower for SA/AA + S and Cypher? when compared with BMS (22 ± 7% and 23 ± 6% vs. 33 ± 5%, respectively, P < 0.001). There was a strong trend toward reduced inflammatory response in the SA/AA and SA/AA + S when compared with BMS and Cypher? groups (P = 0.072). Conclusions: This study shows favorable vascular compatibility and efficacy for a novel bioabsorbable salicylate‐based polymer as a DES coating, and supports further research and development of this unique class of polymer materials for applications in cardiovascular devices. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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)

     

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)

     

A randomized comparison of sirolimus‐eluting versus bare metal stents in the treatment of diabetic patients with native coronary artery lesions: The DECODE study

Objective: To compare the effects of sirolimus‐eluting (SES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) on 6‐month in‐stent late luminal loss (LLL) and 1‐year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in diabetics undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Background: In studies of unselected patients, coronary restenosis rates have been lower with SES than with BMS. Comparisons of SES versus BMS in diabetics with more than one stenosis or more than one vessel disease are few. Methods: This open‐label trial randomly assigned 200 diabetics with de novo coronary artery stenoses to receive up to three SES versus BMS in a 2:1 ratio. The patients underwent repeat coronary angiography at 6 months after the index procedure and were followed‐up for 1 year. The primary study endpoint was in‐stent LLL at 6 months. Results: Between August 2002 and May 2004, 83 patients (mean age = 60 years) with 128 lesions (mean = 1.5 per patient) were enrolled at four U.S. and seven Asian medical centers. Enrollment was terminated early by the Safety Monitoring Board because of a statistically significant difference in rates of clinical endpoints. The mean in‐stent LLL at 6 months was 0.23 mm in SES versus 1.10 mm in BMS recipients (P < 0.001). At 12 months, 8 patients (15%) assigned to SES had experienced MACE versus 12 patients (41%) assigned to BMS (P = 0.006). Conclusions: In diabetics, the mean 6‐month in‐stent LLL was significantly smaller, and 12‐month MACE rate significantly lower, after myocardial revascularization with SES than with BMS. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for coronary bifurcations intervention

Backgrounds : Relative efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) compared with paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) remains controversial. It is unknown whether there are different effect and safety in coronary bifurcation treatment between SES and PES. Objectives : The meta‐analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of SES and PES in coronary bifurcation intervention. Methods : Five head‐to‐head clinical trials of SES versus PES in coronary bifurcation intervention were included. A total of 2,567 patients were involved in the meta‐analysis. Mean follow‐up period ranged from 6 to 35 months. The primary end points were the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) and main‐branch restenosis. Secondary end points were target vessel revascularization (TVR), cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and stent thrombosis. Results : Compared with PES, SES significantly reduced the risk of TLR (5.3% vs. 10.6%, odds ratio (OR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.38–0.70, P < 0.001), main‐branch restenosis (4.59% vs. 12.59%, OR 0.31; 95% CI = 0.18–0.55, P < 0.001) and TVR (7.05% vs. 12.57%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.42–0.81, P = 0.001) in coronary bifurcation intervention. In addition, SES group also had a significantly lower incidence of MACE (8.20% vs. 14.13%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.40–0.84, P = 0.004) than PES group. However, there were no statistical difference with respect to the incidence of cardiac death (1.64% vs. 1.09%, P = 0.19) and stent thrombosis (0.84% vs. 1.08%, P = 0.64) between SES and PES groups. Conclusions : Compared with PES, SES reduced the incidence of TLR, main‐branch restenosis and MACE in coronary bifurcation intervention, while the risk of stent thrombosis was similar between SES and PES groups. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Comparison of 3‐Year Clinical Outcomes Between Resolute™ Zotarolimus‐ and Sirolimus‐Eluting Stents for Long Coronary Artery Stenosis

Objectives

Long‐term clinical outcomes were evaluated in long coronary artery stenosis treated with different types of drug‐eluting stents.

Background

Long‐term follow‐up data to compare clinical outcomes between Resolute? zotarolimus‐eluting stent (R‐ZES) versus sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) implantation for long coronary artery stenosis is insufficient.

Methods

A total of 254 patients (307 lesions) treated with R‐ZES and 265 patients (303 lesions) treated with SES for long coronary lesions (total stent length ≥30 mm) were enrolled, and long‐term (3 years) clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Efficacy (target lesion revascularization [TLR]) and safety (the composite occurrence of cardiovascular death, target lesion–related myocardial infarction, or target lesion–related definite stent thrombosis) were assessed.

Results

The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics except for the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (23.4 ± 11.2 months in R‐ZES‐treated patients vs. 27.4 ± 13.9 months in SES‐treated patients, P < 0.001). Total stent length was similar in R‐ZES‐treated patients (45.0 ± 19.0 mm) and SES‐treated patients (45.4 ± 18.6 mm) (P = 0.464). The cumulative TLR rate was 4.6% in R‐ZES‐treated patients versus 4.6% in SES‐treated patients (P = 0.911). For safety parameters, R‐ZES‐treated patients showed a significantly lower rate of the composite occurrence of cardiovascular death, target lesion–related myocardial infarction, or target lesion–related definite stent thrombosis than SES‐treated patients (0.4% vs. 2.4%, P = 0.042). Particularly, the occurrence of target lesion–related definite stent thrombosis was significantly lower in R‐ZES‐treated patients than in SES‐treated patients (0.0% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.028).

Conclusions

R‐ZES stents showed superior long‐term safety than SES for treating long coronary lesions, while maintaining a similar clinical efficacy.

     

Long‐Term Effects of Novel Combination Coating Anti‐CD34 Antibody Applied on Sirolimus‐Eluting Stents

Objectives

We investigated whether the combination coating of a novel “prohealing coating” hyaluronan‐chitosan (HC) and anti‐CD34 antibody applied on an SES (HCASES) can reduce neointimal formation while promoting endothelialization compared to either agent alone.

Background

Drug‐eluting stents have considerably reduced the incidence of in‐stent restenosis compared with bare metal stents. However, the beneficial effect of drug elution is overshadowed by delayed re‐endothelialization as well as later “catch‐up” proliferation related to the drug.

Methods

Three different stents: Sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES), Genous anti‐CD34 antibody stents (GS), and the combination of HC‐anti‐CD34 antibody with sirolimus‐eluting stents (HCASES) were deployed in 54 normal porcine coronary arteries and harvested for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and histological analysis at 60, 90, and 120 days.

Results

At 60 and 90 days, SEM analysis showed stent surface endothelial coverage was nearly completed in the HCASES (87 ± 3%, 95 ± 3%) compared with that in the SES (68 ± 6%, 77 ± 8%, P = 0.03). Histological examination at 90 days showed that the HCASES group had less percentage of stenosis than the GS group (P < 0.05). At 120 days, SEM showed a significantly higher extent of endothelial coverage above struts in the HCASES (96 ± 2%) and the GS (95 ± 3%) as compared with the SES group (66 ± 3%; P = 0.02). The HCASES group showed less stenosis than that in the GS group (P < 0.05), but it was not significantly different from the SES group (P = 0.063).

Conclusions

Histological and SEM analyses demonstrate that the HCASES can reduce neointimal formation and inflammation while promoting endothelialization in the long term. (J Interven Cardiol 2015;28:257–263)

     

Incidence and Characteristics of Late Catch‐Up Phenomenon Between Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent and Everolimus‐Eluting Stent: A Propensity Matched Study

Objectives

We evaluated and compared the incidence and characteristics of late catch‐up phenomenon (LCU) between everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) implantations.

Background

Late catch‐up phenomenon after everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) implantation has not yet been evaluated sufficiently.

Methods

Between April 2007 and May 2011, 1,234 patients with coronary artery disease were treated with SES and 502 patients with EES. Following propensity score matching, we evaluated 495 SES‐treated patients and 495 ESS‐treated patients. The incidences of LCU (i.e., late target lesion revascularization [TLR] [1–3 years]) were compared.

Results

The cumulative incidence of TLR at 3 years was 11.9% in the SES group and 6.1% in the EES group (P = 0.001). The incidence of late TLR was 7.5% in the SES group and 3.4% in the EES group (P = 0.004). Even though not statistically significant, intravascular ultrasound showed a higher tendency of stent fracture (SF) in late restenosis lesions in the SES group than in the EES group (37.0% vs 7.7%; P = 0.052). Moreover, the SF rate tended to increase in late restenosis compared with early restenosis (within 1 year) in the SES group compared with the EES group (SES: 37.0% vs 22.2%; P = 0.293, EES: 7.7% vs 10.0%; P = 0.846), although the increase was not significantly different.

Conclusions

EES was superior to SES in terms of LCU. SF may be associated with LCU after SES implantation. (J Interven Cardiol 2015;28:551–562)

     

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.

     

Long‐Term Clinical Follow‐Up after Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation for Bare Metal In‐Stent Restenosis

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the long‐term safety and efficacy of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in the treatment of diffuse bare metal stent (BMS) restenosis as compared to the treatment of de novo coronary lesions in high restenosis risk patient population.

Background

To date limited long‐term data are available about the treatment of BMS restenosis with DES.

Methods

Five hundred and fourteen consecutive patients who underwent DES implantation between January 2003 and October 2006 at our institute were studied: 201 patients received DES for treatment of BMS restenosis and 313 patients received DES for high restenosis risk de novo lesions. Outcomes were calculated using propensity score adjustment. Mean follow‐up length was 45.6 ± 21.5 months.

Results

The rates of acute coronary syndrome, three‐vessel disease, and diabetes were high in both restenosis and de novo groups: 44.8% versus 46.3%, 20.9% versus 28.7%, and 34.3% versus 38.9%, respectively. The incidence of ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) yielded similar results in the restenosis group and de novo group at 4 years (10.4% vs 12.4%, P = 0.490). All‐cause mortality was lower in the restenosis group at 4 years (7.4% vs 14.7%, P = 0.032); however, the incidence of definite and probable stent thrombosis did not differ (1.9% vs 1.6%, P = 0.708) between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

DESs are safe in the treatment of diffuse BMS restenosis and the rate of additional TLR is acceptable as compared to the use of DES in de novo lesions. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:271–277)

     

Comparing long‐term outcomes between drug‐eluting and bare‐metal stents in the treatment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy

Background: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is the leading cause of death after the first year following heart transplantation. We compared restenosis rates, mortality, and other major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between transplant recipients treated with DES and BMS for CAV. Methods: All patients from our heart transplant registry undergoing PCI with stenting for CAV were identified. Procedural data, baseline clinical characteristics, yearly coronary angiography, cardiac events and death were prospectively collected. Primary outcome was in‐stent restenosis (ISR). Secondary outcomes were in‐segment restenosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), all‐cause mortality and combined MACE. Results: 36 lesions in 25 patients treated with DES were compared with 31 BMS‐treated lesions in 19 patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. 12‐month incidence of ISR was 0% with DES vs. 12.9% with BMS, P = 0.03. Over mean (±standard error) follow‐up of 51.1 ± 7.5 months this difference was significant for vessels ≤3 mm in diameter, hazard ratio (HR) DES vs. BMS 0.37 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.95) P = 0.037; but not for vessels >3 mm P = 0.45. However, there was no difference in overall longterm patency because of similar rates of in‐segment restenosis between DES and BMS, HR 1.13 (95% CI 0.43 to 2.97) P = 0.81. Also, the rates of TVR, death from any cause and combined MACE were similar; log rank P 0.88, 0.67, and 0.85, respectively. Conclusion: This study suggests that after PCI for cardiac allograft vasculopathy, despite a lower in‐stent restenosis rate in DES compared with BMS, in‐segment restenosis and clinical cardiac endpoints are similar. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Impact of renal insufficiency on safety and efficacy of drug‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents at 6 years

Background : There is few information on the long‐term efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in all‐comer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)—patients complicated by renal insufficiency (RI). Objective : Our aim was to assess the 6‐year clinical outcome of PCI‐patients with RI treated exclusively with BMS, SES, or PES in our academic hospital. Methods: A total of 1382 patients, included in three cohorts of consecutive PCI‐patients (BMS = 392; SES = 498; PES = 492), were categorized by creatinine clearance calculated by the Cockroft–Gault formula (normal kidney function ≥ 90; mild RI = 60–89; moderate RI < 60) and systematically followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : Mortality rates were significantly higher for patients with moderate RI compared to mild RI and normal kidney function at 6 years (Kaplan–Meier estimate: moderate RI (34%) vs. mild RI (12%), P < 0.001; moderate RI (34%) vs. normal kidney function (8%), P < 0.001). After multivariate Cox‐regression analysis, SES and PES decreased the occurrence of target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) and MACE at 6 years in patients with a normal creatinine clearance compared to BMS [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28–0.84; aHR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.97, respectively] with no significant effect on mortality. Safety‐ and efficacy end points were comparable for the three stent types in patients with mild‐ and moderate renal function. Conclusion : Patients with a normal creatinine clearance had significant improvement in TVR and MACE rates after SES‐ or PES implantation compared to BMS at 6 years. However, there was no superiority of both drug‐eluting stents over BMS in safety and efficacy end points for patients with impaired renal function. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.