Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in ST elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-label Stent (GHOST) Registry

Background: Multiple randomized trials and observational studies have shown drug‐eluting stents (DES) to be safe and effective at 3‐year follow‐up in stent thrombosis (ST)‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, outcomes data beyond 3–4 years after DES implantation are sparse. Methods: We studied 554 STEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with either DES or bare metal stent (BMS). Primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of ST and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary end‐points were time to occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and discrete events that comprise MACE (death, MI, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcomes of the DES and BMS groups were assessed by survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression. Results: There were 205 (37%) patients who received DES and 349 (63%) patients who received BMS. At a median follow‐up of 41.4 months after PCI, there were no differences in the unadjusted incidence of ST (ST, 3.4 vs. 4.3%, log‐rank P = 0.61) and MI (6.8% vs. 8%, P = 0.61) between DES versus BMS groups, respectively. However, DES implantation was associated with lower unadjusted incidence of death or MI (11% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.0002), MACE (16% vs. 34%, P < 0.0001), death (6.3% vs. 17%, P = 0.0004), and TVR (9.8% vs. 18%, P = 0.008) than BMS implantation. In multivariable analyses, DES implantation was associated with significantly lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR = 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31–0.76], P = 0.0007) than BMS implantation. Conclusion: In our study of STEMI patients, DES implantation was safer than BMS implantation and was associated with lower MACE at long‐term follow‐up. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:118–125)     

Sirolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

Recently, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the rate of adverse events among selected patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). We present real-world experience from a single center registry evaluating the safety and efficacy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected patients with STEMI using SES. Clinical outcome at 300-day follow-up in two cohorts of 225 consecutive patients who underwent bare metal stent (BMS) (January 2004-February 2005, n = 123) or SES (March 2005-December 2006, n = 102) implantation was examined. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, nonfatal reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). The incidence of short-term MACE was similar between the SES group and BMS group (30-day rate of MACE: 4.9% versus 8.9%, P = 0.30). Angiographically documented stent thrombosis within 30 days after primary PCI was not diagnosed in any patient in the SES group and occurred in 1 patient treated with BMS (0 versus 0.8%, P = 1.0). At 300 days, SES implantation significantly reduced the incidence of MACE (7.8% versus 22.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.71], P = 0.005), mainly due to a marked reduction in the risk of TVR (1.0% versus 17.1%, HR 0.05 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.39], P < 0.001). There was no new onset of documented stent thrombosis between 30 and 300 days in either group. Thus, this real-world registry confirmed the safety and efficacy of SES with remarkably lower rates of TVR and MACE in the setting of primary PCI for unselected patients with STEMI in a real-world scenario.     

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents following successful PCI in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-Label StenT (GHOST) Registry

Background: The long‐term safety and effectiveness of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) beyond 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. Methods: We studied 674 NSTEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with DES (n = 323) or BMS (n = 351). The primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of death or nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST). Secondary end‐points included time to occurrence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE, defined as the composite of death, MI, ST, TVR). Results: The DES and BMS groups were well matched except that DES patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for a longer duration and had smaller final vessel diameter. In survival analysis, at a mean follow‐up of 1333 ± 659 days after PCI, the DES group had similar incidence of death/myocardial infarction (24% vs. 27%, log rank p = 0.23) and ST (4.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.18) as the BMS group. The DES patients had lower incidence of TVR (8.1% vs. 17%, p = 0.0018) but similar MACE (26% vs. 37%, p = 0.31). In multivariable analysis, DES vs. BMS implantation showed no significant impact on death/myocardial infarction [adjusted hazards ratio (HR) 1.0, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.7–1.4], ST (HR 1.7; CI 0.7 – 4.0), or MACE (HR 0.8; CI 0.6 – 1.1). However, TVR was lower in the DES group (HR 0.4; CI 0.3 – 0.7). Conclusion: In patients presenting with NSTEMI, DES implantation appears to be as safe as BMS implantation at long‐term follow‐up. In addition, DES are effective in reducing TVR compared to BMS. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:28–36)     

Safety and effectiveness of drug eluting stent in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty

Background : Drug eluting stents (DES) have recently been proven to further reduce restenosis and revascularization rate in comparison to bare metal stents in elective procedures. Most early DES trials did not include patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST‐segment elevation MI, because these patients tend to have lower restenosis rates than other patient groups and delayed endothelization of these stents raises concern about a possible increase of thrombotic complications in the setting of STEMI. Aim : To confirm the safety and effectiveness of DES in patients with STEMI in a real‐world scenario. Methods : From January 2004 to December 2006, clinical and angiographic data of 370 patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI have been analyzed. Patients were retrospectively followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results : Overall, 120 patients received DES (32%, DES group) and 250 received bare metal stents (68%, BMS group) in the infarct related artery. Compared with the BMS group, DES patients were younger, (mean age 56 ± 12 vs. 65 ± 10; P < 0.001) had more often diabetes mellitus (47% vs. 14% P < 0.001), anterior localization (65% vs. 45%; P < 0.0011) and less cardiogenic shock at admission (4% vs. 7%; P < 0.001). The angiographic characteristics in the DES group showed longer lesions (23 mm vs. 19 mm) and smaller diameter of vessels (2.5 mm vs. 3.0 mm). After a median follow‐up of 24 ± 9 months, there was no significant difference in the rate of stent thrombosis (1.6% in the DES group vs. 1.2% in the BMS group, P = ns). The incidence of MACE was significantly lower in the DES group compared with the BMS group (HR 0.56 [95% CI: 0.3–0.8]; P = 0.01), principally due to the lower rate of TVR (HR 0.41 [95% CI: 0.2–0.85]; P = 0.01). Conclusions : Utilization of DES in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI, in our “real world,” was safe and improved the 3‐year clinical outcome compared with BMS reducing the need of TVR. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Clinical results of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with drug eluting stents (DES) versus a matched control group of patients with STEMI treated with bare metal stents (BMS). METHODS: This registry included 122 patients with STEMI undergoing primary coronary angioplasty with DES implantation at our institution. The control group consisted of 506 patients implanted with BMS, who were matched for age, infarct location, and diabetic status. The incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR) and stent thrombosis were assessed up to 12 months. RESULTS: Twelve months follow up showed a non-significant trend towards reduced deaths (3.3% versus 7.1%, P=0.1), significantly reduced recurrent MI (0.0% versus 6.1%, P=0.02), TVR (5.7% versus 15.2%, P=0.006) and TLR (2.5% versus 14.0%, P=0.004) events in the DES group as compared to BMS group. The composite incidences of MACE at 12 months follow-up was lower in the DES group (11.5%) as compared to the BMS group (21.3%, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: According to our experiences, the use of DES in STEMI is safe and effective as compared to BMS. DES was effective in reducing the incidence of restenosis outcomes and overall adverse cardiac events up to 12 months.     

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.     

Drug-eluting stents are associated with similar cardiovascular outcomes when compared to bare metal stents in the setting of acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) as compared to bare metal stents (BMSs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared outcomes among patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who received DES with those who received BMS. METHODS: In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes of a cohort of 122 patients who underwent primary or facilitated PCI and received a BMS were compared to 122 propensity-matched patients who received a DES. Seventy-two patients received sirolimus-eluting stents, and 50 received paclitaxel-eluting stents. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar among groups. One-, 6-, and 12-month outcomes, including reinfarction, death, stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were similar among groups. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was 13.3% in the BMS group and 9.2% in the DES group [P=not significant (ns)], recurrent MI was 5.3% in the BMS group vs. 4.4% in the DES group (P=ns), and TVR was 7% in the BMS group vs. 8.7% in the DES group (P=ns). CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the general use of DES in the setting of STEMI given similar cardiovascular outcomes among patients receiving BMS or DES, the need for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy with DES, and the possible repercussions of very late stent thrombosis.     

Safety and Long-Term Efficacy of Sirolimus Eluting Stent in ST-elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction: The REAL (Registro REgionale AngiopLastiche Emilia-Romagna) Registry

Summary Background: Limited data are available for sirolimus eluting stent (SES) implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Aim: to confirm the safety and effectiveness of SES in patients with STEMI in a real-world scenario (multicentric registry). Methods: From July 2002 to June 2004, clinical and angiographic data of 1617 patients with STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been collected. Patients were prospectively followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: Overall, 205 patients received SES (12.5%, SES group) and 1412 received bare metal stent (87.5%, BMS group) in the infarct related artery. Compared with the BMS group, SES patients were younger, had more often diabetes mellitus, anterior localization and less cardiogenic shock at admission. The angiographic characteristics in the SES group showed longer lesions and smaller diameter of vessels. After a median follow-up of 396 days, there was no significant difference in the rate of stent thrombosis (1% in the SES group vs 1.5% in the BMS group, p=ns). The incidence of MACE was significantly lower in the SES group compared to BMS group (HR 0.62 [95% CI: 0.4–0.95]; p=0.03), principally due to the lower rate of TVR (HR 0.41 [95% CI: 0.2–0.85]; p=0.01). Conclusions: Utilization of SES in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI, in our “real world” registry, was safe and improved the 1-year clinical outcome compared to BMS reducing the need of TVR.     

A comparison of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein graft PCI outcomes: a meta-analysis

Aims: Studies demonstrate that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) is associated with reduced revascularization and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rates compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in native coronary vessels. Optimal PCI treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remains unclear despite SVG procedures representing up to 10% of PCI cases. We therefore performed a meta‐analysis to compare outcomes between BMS and DES in SVG PCI. Methods and Results: A search (2004–2009) of MEDLINE and conference proceedings for all relevant studies comparing mortality and MACE outcomes in DES versus BMS in SVG PCI and meta‐analysis of the data was performed. Twenty studies were identified from 2005 to 2009 enrolling a total of 5,296 patients. Meta‐analysis revealed a decrease in mortality associated with DES use, odds ratio (OR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.88; P = 0.004. Similarly, MACE (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51–0.82; P < 0.001), total lesion revascularization (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43–0.83; P = 0.002), and total vessel revascularization (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.41–0.80; P = 0.001) were significantly decreased in the patients in which DES were used compared to BMS. This reduction in mortality and MACE events associated with DES use appears to be limited to registry studies and not randomized controlled studies. Conclusions: Our meta‐analysis suggests DES use to be safe in SVG PCI and associated with reduced mortality and MACE rates with reductions in revascularization also observed. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:172–180)     

Safety and efficacy of drug eluting stents compared with bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft interventions: A comprehensive meta‐analysis of randomized trials and observational studies comprising 7,994 patients

Background: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remain amongst the most challenging lesions for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is unknown whether drug eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare metal stents (BMS) for such lesions. Our objective is to determine the safety and efficacy of DES compared with BMS for SVG lesions by performing a meta‐analysis of clinical trials and observational studies. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, and internet‐based resources of clinical trials. Study Selection: Studies comparing DES vs. BMS for SVG lesions with at least > 30 patients in each study reporting the outcomes of interest [death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis (ST), and the composite of death, TVR and MI (major adverse cardiac events; MACE)] with at least 6 months clinical follow‐up. The primary outcome of interest was death. Results: Two randomized trials, one subgroup analysis of a randomized trial and 26 observational studies comprising a total of 7,994 patients (4,187 patients in DES and 3,807 patients in BMS group) were included in the analysis .Mean follow‐up duration was 21 ± 11 months (6–48 months). In the overall population, MACE events were 19% in DES and 28% in BMS with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) P < 0.00001. This effect of MACE was sustained in studies with >2 years follow‐up with RR of 0.77 (0.65, 0.91) P = 0.003. Death rate was 7.8% in DES and 9% in BMS with a RR of 0.82 (0.7, 0.97) P = 0.02. MI rate was 5.7% in DES and 7.6% in BMS with RR of 0.72 (0.57, 0.91) P = 0.007. TVR was 12% in DES and 17% in BMS with RR of 0.71 (0.59, 0.85) P = 0.0002. ST was 1% in DES and 1.7 % in BMS RR of 0.61 (0.35, 1.06) P = 0.08. Specifically in randomized controlled trials, DES were associated with no significant differences in overall mortality [RR = 1.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17–23; P = 0.58] or MI (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.3–5.5; P = 0.78) compared with BMS. Conclusions: Based on the results of this meta‐analysis, DES may be considered as a safe and efficacious option for the percutaneous intervention of SVG lesions. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

A comparative analysis of major clinical outcomes using drug‐eluting stents versus bare metal stents in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients

Objectives: We aim to explore the clinical outcome of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare‐metal stents (BMS) implantation in diabetics versus nondiabetic patients. Background: Diabetic patients sustain worse long‐term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) when compared with nondiabetics. The use of DES decreases the rate of repeat revascularization in this population but data concerning long‐term clinical benefits, such as myocardial infarction (MI) or mortality is scant. Methods: We analyzed data from a comprehensive registry of 6,583 consecutive patients undergoing PCI at our center. A propensity score was used for analysis of outcomes and for matching (DES vs. BMS). Outcome parameters were total mortality, MI, repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates, and risk‐adjusted event‐free survival. Within this cohort, we identified 2,571 nondiabetic patients and these were compared with 1,826 diabetic coronary patients. Results: Mean and median follow up time was 3 and 3.25 years, respectively. Overall, diabetics had higher rates of major‐adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 4 years compared with nondiabetics (23.03 vs. 31.96 P > 0.001). DES use was associated with lower rates of TVR in both groups [diabetics hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42–0.76, P < 0.001, nondiabetics HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55–0.97, P = 0.03] while sustained decreased rates of both mortality and MI were evident solely among diabetics (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56–0.89, P = 0.004 in diabetic vs. HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.69–1.13, P = 0.3). Conclusions: In a “real‐world,” unselected population and extended clinical use, DES in diabetics was associated with sustained decreased rates of MI, death, TVR, and MACE while this benefit was attenuated in the nondiabetic population. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

A comparative analysis of major clinical outcomes using drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents in a large consecutive patient cohort

Objectives : To ascertain the long‐term safety, efficacy, and pattern of use of drug‐eluting stents (DES) in routine clinical practice. Methods : We analyzed a registry of 6,583 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), of whom 2,633 were treated using DES (DES group) and 3,950 were treated using bare‐metal stents (BMS group). Propensity score was used for stratified analysis of outcomes and for matching. Outcomes were total mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates, and risk‐adjusted event‐free survival. Results : Follow‐up time was 6 months to 5.18 years (mean: 3 years). Patients in the DES group were more likely to be diabetic and had use of longer or more stents, treatment of more lesions and of more proximal main vessels. After propensity score matching, the cumulative mortality was 12.85% in the DES group versus 14.14% in the BMS group (P = 0.001). Use of DES reduced the occurrence of MI (5.17% vs.5.83%, P = 0.046), of clinically driven TVR (9.76% vs. 12.28%, P < 0.001) and of the composite endpoint of death/MI/TVR (23.38% vs. 26.07%; P < 0.001). Conclusions : Our risk‐adjusted event‐free survival analysis indicates a prognostic benefit for DES utilization that sustains up to 5 years following PCI. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

药物洗脱支架与金属裸支架在急性ST段抬高心肌梗死急诊介入治疗中应用长期随访结果的比较

目的 探讨与金属裸支架(BMS)相比,Cypher支架(Cordis公司,美国)在急性ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中应用的安全性和长期有效性.方法 连续选择2002年12月至2005年3月间STEMI患者407例,均于发病12 h内行急诊PCI治疗,于梗死相关血管靶病变置入Cypher支架或BMS.对所有病例随访1.5～4.0年(平均28.7±11.7个月),比较两类支架院内及出院后严重心脏不良事件(MACE,包括死亡、再发心肌梗死、靶病变重建等)发生的差异.结果 407例患者中置入Cypher支架者131例,置入BMS者276例.Cypher支架组所置入支架的直径明显小于BMS组(3.0 mm与3.2 mm,P=0.00).两组在随访期间心因性死亡(1.5%与6.9%,P=0.02)以及随访期间总的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)(6.1%与12.7%,P=0.04)差异均有统计学意义.应用Cox回归比例风险模型计算Cypher支架组在随访期间发生总MACE的相对危险度为0.45(P＜0.05).两组的支架内血栓形成发生率差异无统计学意义,支架内再狭窄发生率以及靶病变重建率差异亦无统计学意义,但Cypher支架较之BMS有明显降低的趋势.结论 在STEMI的急诊PCI治疗时,置入Cypher支架具有较好的安全性和长期有效性,与BMS相比可以降低远期复合MACE以及心因性死亡的发生率. 2)以及随访期间总的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)(6.1%与12.7%,P=0.04)差异均有统计学意义.应用Cox回归比例风险模型计算Cypher支架组在随访期间发生总MACE的相对危险度为0.45(P＜0.05).两组的支架内血栓形成发生率差异无统计学意义,支架内再狭窄发生率以及靶病变重建率 异亦无统计学意义,但Cypher支架较之BMS有明显降低的趋势.结论 在STEMI的急诊PCI治疗时,置人Cypher支架具有较好的安全性和长期有效性,与BMS相比可以降低远期复合MACE以及心因性死亡的发生率. 2)以及随访期间总的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)(6.1%与12.7%,P=0.04)差异均有统计学意义.应用Cox回归比例风险模型计算Cypher支架组在随访期间发生总MACE的相对危险度为0.45(P＜0.     

Lack of clinical long‐term benefit with the use of a drug eluting stent compared to use of a bare metal stent in saphenous vein grafts

Background: Small randomized trials have shown short‐term improved outcome with drug‐eluting stents (DES) over bare metal stent (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions by reducing in‐stent restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). It is not clear, however, if these benefits are maintained long term. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome in a larger cohort of patients undergoing SVG stent implantation with DES or BMS, at 2 years. Methods: From among 250 patients who underwent SVG stenting, 225 patients with available follow‐up were selected from data bases at the three participating institutions. One‐hundred‐six patients had DES (sirolimus, paclitaxel or tacrolimus eluting stent) and 119 patients had any available BMS from April 2002 to December 2006. The primary endpoint was MACE rate, a combination of cardiac death, S‐T elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and target lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Follow‐up was obtained by mailed interviews or telephone calls and review of the hospital chart. Results: The DES and BMS groups had similar age (71 ± 8 years vs. 70 ± 7 years, P = 1.0), diabetes (45% vs. 36%, P = 0.3), history of MI (58% vs. 51%, P = 0.6), EF (44% vs. 47%, P = 0.2) and previous PCI (40% vs. 35%, P = 0.4). Reference vessel diameter (3.15 ± 0.5 mm vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 mm. P = 0.001) and stent size (3.3 ± 0.4 mm vs. 3.9 ± 0.5 mm, P = 0.001) were smaller in the DES group; however, the BMS were longer (24 ± 10 mm vs. 21 ± 6 mm, P = 0.05). At one year there was a trend (P = 0.1) for lower MACE rate in the DES group, but at two years there was no difference in MACE free survival between the DES and BMS groups (81 % vs. 82%, P = 0.9). The death rate was similar (6% each) with three patients having STEMI (two in the DES and one in the BMS). TVR was also similar (14% in each group). Conclusion: In patients undergoing treatment of SVG disease with a stent, the marginal benefit of DES seen at 1 year was lost at 2‐year follow‐up. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Two‐Year Clinical Registry Follow‐up of Endothelial Progenitor Cell Capture Stent Versus Sirolimus‐Eluting Bioabsorbable Polymer‐Coated Stent Versus Bare Metal Stents in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background: Endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) capture stent is designed to promote rapid endothelization and healing and is potentially useful in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We studied the intermediate‐term efficacy and safety of EPC stent and compared that with sirolimus‐eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent (CURA) and bare metal stent (BMS) in AMI patients. Methodology: Patients presenting with AMI who underwent primary PCI with the respective stents between January 2004 and June 2006 were enrolled in the single‐center clinical registry. The study end‐points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis. Results: A total of 366 patients (EPC = 95, CURA = 53, BMS 218) were enrolled. Baseline demographics including age, gender, diabetes, renal impairment, predischarge left ventricular ejection fraction, and creatinine kinase level were comparable among the groups. Procedural success rate was 99.5%. Post‐procedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow was achieved in EPC 91.6%, CURA 96.2%, and BMS 88.5% (P = 0.209). At 2 years, the MACE rate was EPC 13.7%, CURA 15.1%, and BMS 19.7% (P = 0.383). Target vessel revascularizations (TVR) were EPC 4.2%, CURA 9.4%, and BMS 6.0% (P = 0.439). Nonfatal myocardial infarctions were EPC 1.1%, CURA 3.8%, and BMS 4.1% (P = 0.364). One patient in the EPC group had acute stent thrombosis. There was no late stent thrombosis in the EPC group. Conclusion: EPC stent appeared to be safe and had comparable clinical efficacy with a BMS when used in the AMI setting. At 2‐year follow‐up, the EPC group showed favorable, single‐digit TVR rate and stent thrombosis remained a low‐event occurrence. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:101‐108)     

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.     

国产西罗莫司洗脱支架与裸支架治疗急性心肌梗死临床疗效的比较

目的探讨国产西罗莫司洗脱支架与裸支架治疗急性心肌梗死（AMI）临床疗效的差异。方法173例连续行直接PCI的AMI患者随机分为西罗莫司洗脱支架组（87例）和裸支架组（86例）,分析住院期间和支架置入后6个月的支架内血栓、主要心血管事件（包括再次心肌梗死、缺血性靶血管重建和死亡）发生率及6个月再狭窄率。结果两组患者在术后血管通畅、肌酸激酶峰值、心功能和住院期间心脏事件方面差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组各有2例支架内血栓（2．4％比2．3％,P〉0．05）。6个月时,国产西罗莫司洗脱支架组的支架内再狭窄率（4．5％比40．0％,P〈0．01）、节段内再狭窄率（6．8％比44．9％,P〈0．01）和主要不良心脏事件发生率（8．0％比24．4％,P〈0．01）显著低于裸支架组。国产西罗莫司洗脱支架组主要心脏事件的减少主要是因为缺血性靶血管重建减少所致（3．4％比11．6％,P〈0．05）。结论与裸支架相比,国产西罗莫司洗脱支架治疗AMI患者并未增加6个月内支架内血栓的发生,而显著降低6个月的再狭窄率和主要心脏事件发生率。     

Long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting compared to bare-metal stents for the treatment of transplant coronary artery disease

Objective : We aimed to compare the long‐term clinical outcomes of first‐vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) for the treatment of transplant coronary artery disease (TCAD). Background : TCAD is the leading cause of late death in orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) recipients. PCI is associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with non‐OHT patients. Our institution previously reported superior angiographic outcomes with DES compared with BMS in OHT patients. However, long‐term clinical outcomes comparing PCI with DES versus BMS are lacking. Methods : The data on 105 OHT recipients who underwent first‐vessel PCI with DES (n = 58) or BMS (n = 47) at UCLA Medical Center between 1995 and 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. Results : Five‐year clinical outcomes were not significantly different with DES and BMS in terms of the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR) [(40.8 ± 7.2)% vs. (59.6 ± 7.2)%, log‐rank P = 0.33], death [(31.8 ± 7.8)% vs. (40.4 ± 7.2)%, log‐rank P = 0.46], MI [(12.2 ± 6.2)% vs. (11.3 ± 5.4)%, log rank P = 0.98], TVR [(25.5 ± 6.9)% vs. (26.5 ± 7.3)%, log rank P = 0.76], and time to repeat OHT [(2.27 ± 1.79) vs. (3.22 ± 3.34), P = 0.98]. Conclusions : At long‐term follow‐up, PCI with DES and BMS provided similar clinical outcomes in OHT. Long‐term mortality remains high in OHT recipients after PCI with either DES or BMS. Randomized clinical trials are required to determine the optimal treatment strategy for OHT recipients with TCAD. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Four‐year clinical outcome of sirolimus‐ and paclitaxel‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents for the percutaneous treatment of stable coronary artery disease

Background : There are limited data on the long‐term safety and efficacy profile of coronary stent implantation in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objective : We aimed to assess the 4‐year clinical outcome in patients who received a bare‐metal stent (BMS), sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), or a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) for the percutaneous treatment of stable angina in our center during 2000–2005. Methods : In the study period, a total of 2,449 consecutive patients (BMS = 1,005; SES = 373; and PES = 1071) underwent a PCI as part of three historical PCI‐cohorts for stable angina and were routinely followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : At 4 years follow‐up, 264 BMS patients (26.8%) had a MACE, compared to 75 SES patients (20.9%) and 199 PES patients (23.9%). Multivariate analysis showed that SES and PES were superior to BMS with respect to MACE [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47–0.81; HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55–0.82, respectively]. The occurrence of MACE was significantly lower in the SES and PES population, primarily due to less target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) procedures (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37–0.75; HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62–0.81, respectively). The occurrence of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis was equally rare with each stent type. There were no significant differences between SES and PES on death, myocardial infarction, TVR, and MACE. Conclusion : These findings suggest that SES and PES result in decreased TVR procedures and MACE compared to BMS at 4 years follow‐up. SES or PES implantation should be the preferred choice over BMS for patients with stable CAD undergoing PCI. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Synergy Between Direct Coronary Stenting Technique and Use of the Novel Thin Strut Cobalt Chromium Skylor™ Stent: the Mace in Follow Up Patients Treated with Skylor Stent [MILES Study

BACKGROUND:

Despite significant improvements in stent platform, currently available bare-metal stents (BMS) are still associated with restenosis. Thin-strut design cobalt-chromium alloys hold the promise of improving results of BMS, especially when implanted with direct technique. We performed an observational study to appraise outcomes of the novel Skylor™ stent, stratifying outcomes according to stenting technique.

METHODS and RESULTS:

We included all consecutive patients undergoing coronary stenting with Skylor™ at 2 centers between 2006 and 2009. The primary end-point was the long-term rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, i.e. death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or target vessel revascularization (TVR)). As pre-specified analysis, we compared patients undergoing direct stenting versus those stent implantation following pre-dilation. A total of 1020 patients were included (1292 Skylor™ stents), with procedural success obtained in 99%. Comparing patients undergoing direct stenting (66%) versus pre-dilation (34%) at 16±7 months of follow-up, MACE had occurred in, respectively, 8% versus 14% (p=0.001), with death in 1% versus 2% (p=0.380), MI in 1% versus 2% (p=0.032), CABG in 0.2% versus 2% (p=0.012), and TVR in 6% versus 9% [p=0.071]. Even at multivariable analysis with propensity adjustment, direct stenting was associated with significantly fewer MACE [hazard ratio 0.60 [0.38-0.93], p=0.024].

CONCLUSIONS:

This observational study suggests the presence of a beneficial synergy between direct coronary stenting technique and use of the novel thin-strut cobalt-chromium Skylor™ stent in real-world patients undergoing PCI.