Outcomes of optimal or "stent-like"balloon angioplasty in acutemyocardial infarction: the CADILLAC trial

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare outcomes between patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with an optimal or "stent-like" result versus patients who underwent routine stent placement. BACKGROUND: Recent studies in patients with AMI undergoing stent implantation have suggested that PTCA may no longer be a relevant treatment modality for stent eligible lesions. However, whether routine stent placement is superior or necessary when an optimal PTCA or "stent-like" result is achieved is unknown. METHODS: In the Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications (CADILLAC) trial, 2,082 patients with AMI were randomly assigned to undergo PTCA alone, PTCA + abciximab, stenting alone, or stenting + abciximab. Outcomes were compared in patients achieving an optimal acute PTCA result (residual core laboratory diameter stenosis <30% without significant dissection) versus those assigned to routine stenting. RESULTS: Optimal PTCA was achieved in 40.7% of patients randomized to balloon angioplasty, including 38.5% and 42.7% assigned to PTCA alone and PTCA + abciximab, respectively. Ischemic target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 30 days occurred more frequently after optimal PTCA than routine stenting (5.1% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.007). The one-year composite adverse event rate (death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, or TVR) was greater after optimal PTCA than routine stenting (21.9% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.001), driven largely by increased rates of ischemic TVR (19.1% vs. 9.1%, p < 0.001); no significant differences were present in the rates of death, reinfarction, or disabling stroke between the two groups. Angiographic restenosis also was more common with optimal PTCA than routine stenting (36.2% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.003). Even a post-PTCA diameter stenosis of <20% (realized in 12% of patients) did not result in outcomes equivalent to stenting. CONCLUSIONS: Even if an optimal result is achieved after primary PTCA in AMI, early and late outcomes can be further improved with routine stent implantation.     

A randomized trial comparing primary infarct artery stenting with or without abciximab in acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the efficacy of abciximab as adjunctive therapy to routine infarct-related artery (IRA) stenting. BACKGROUND: The impact of abciximab on the efficacy of myocardial reperfusion and the outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing IRA stenting have not yet been defined. METHODS: In a randomized trial, we assigned 400 patients with AMI to undergo IRA stenting alone or stenting plus abciximab. The primary end point was a composite of death, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stroke at one month. RESULTS: The incidence of the primary end point was lower in the abciximab group than in the stent only group (4.5% and 10.5%, respectively; p = 0.023), and randomization to abciximab was independently related to the risk of the primary end point (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.97; p = 0.041). Early ST-segment resolution was more frequent in the abciximab group (85% vs. 68%, p < 0.001). Infarct size, as assessed by one-month technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy, revealed smaller infarcts in the abciximab group. At six months, the cumulative difference in mortality between the groups increased (4.5% vs. 8%), and the incidence of the composite of six-month death and reinfarction was lower in the abciximab group than in the stent only group (5.5% and 13.5%, respectively; p = 0.006). Six-month repeat TVR and restenosis rates were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Abciximab plus IRA stenting should be considered the routine reperfusion strategy in patients with AMI undergoing primary percutaneous mechanical revascularization, especially in high-risk patients.     

Predictors of and outcomes of early thrombosis following balloon angioplasty versus primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction and usefulness of abciximab (the CADILLAC trial)

We sought to identify the predictors and clinical outcomes of early thrombosis after primary angioplasty and stenting for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Little is known about the correlates and prognosis of acute and subacute thromboses after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI. We therefore studied the frequency, clinical determinants, and implications of early thrombosis in a large trial of patients who had primary PCI. In the Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications trial, 2,082 patients who had AMI were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to primary stenting or to balloon angioplasty, each with and without abciximab. Early thrombosis occurred in 19 patients (0.9%) at a median of 2 days (range 0 to 23). Maximal balloon diameter was smaller, and aneurysmal and bifurcation lesions were more prevalent in the group with early thrombosis. Early thrombosis occurred in 0.4% of patients who had been randomized to receive abciximab versus 1.5% of control patients (p <0.01) and in 0.5% of patients who had been randomized to undergo stenting versus 1.4% of those who underwent balloon angioplasty (p = 0.04). By multivariate analysis, abciximab use was an independent predictor of no thrombosis (hazard ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.86, p = 0.026). Within 30 days, 5.3% of patients who had early thrombosis died, 32.9% developed reinfarction, and 89.5% required repeat target vessel revascularization (including bypass surgery in 11.1%). As a result, patients who had versus those who did not have early thrombosis had markedly higher rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days (94.7% vs 5.0%, p <0.0001) and at 1 year (94.7% vs 16.9%, p <0.0001). Patients who develop early thrombosis after primary PCI have a very high rate of major adverse cardiac events, including death and reinfarction, and usually require repeat coronary angioplasty or surgery for management. Complex baseline angiographic morphology and smaller maximal balloon diameter are predictors of early thrombosis after primary PCI for AMI. The incidence of early thrombosis after primary angioplasty and stenting is decreased by abciximab use.     

Combination of abciximab with primary stenting in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a community hospital experience

Abciximab administration during primary coronary angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reduces death, reinfarction, and the need for urgent target vessel revascularization (TVR). Stenting in AMI reduces the rate of repeat in-hospital TVR. There is limited information on the effectiveness and one-year clinical event rate of combined abciximab and primary stenting in patients with AMI at community hospitals. We evaluated the outcome of 40 consecutive patients treated with both abciximab and primary stenting at our institution. All patients underwent primary stenting of the infarct-related artery. All patients received abciximab, aspirin, ticlopidine, and heparin. TIMI grade 3 flow was established in all 40 patients. No patient required urgent TVR. There was no in-hospital reinfarction or cardiac-related death. All patients were followed for at least one year, and no patient died after hospital discharge. Thallium exercise stress test revealed no evidence of ischemia at 12 months follow-up. We conclude that combined abciximab and primary stenting in this series of patients with AMI was associated with excellent results.     

A comparison of systematic stenting and conventional balloon angioplasty during primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

In a multicenter, randomized trial, systematic stenting using the Wiktor stent was compared to conventional balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

BACKGROUND

Primary angioplasty in AMI is limited by in-hospital recurrent ischemia and a high restenosis rate.

METHODS

A total of 211 patients with AMI <12 h from symptom onset, with an occluded native coronary artery, were randomly assigned to systematic stenting (n = 101) or balloon angioplasty (n = 110). The primary end point was the binary six-month restenosis rate determined by core laboratory quantitative angiographic analysis.

RESULTS

Angiographic success (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] flow grade 3 and residual diameter stenosis <50%) was achieved in 86% of the patients in the stent group and in 82.7% of those in the balloon angioplasty group (p = 0.5). Compared with the 3% cross-over in the stent group, cross-over to stenting was required in 36.4% of patients in the balloon angioplasty group (p = 0.0001). Six-month binary restenosis (≥50% residual stenosis) rates were 25.3% in the stent group and 39.6% in the balloon angioplasty group (p = 0.04). At six months, the event-free survival rates were 81.2% in the stent group and 72.7% in the balloon angioplasty group (p = 0.14), and the repeat revascularization rates were 16.8% and 26.4%, respectively (p = 0.1). At one year, the event-free survival rates were 80.2% in the stent group and 71.8% in the balloon angioplasty group (p = 0.16), and the repeat revascularization rates were 17.8% and 28.2%, respectively (p = 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of primary angioplasty for AMI, as compared with a strategy of conventional balloon angioplasty, systematic stenting using the Wiktor stent results in lower rates of angiographic restenosis.     

Stenting versus thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction trial (STAT)

OBJECTIVES: We sought to directly compare primary stenting with accelerated tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) in patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Thrombolysis remains the standard therapy for AMI. However, at some institutions primary angioplasty is favored. Randomized trials have shown that primary angioplasty is equal or superior to thrombolysis, while recent studies demonstrate that stent implantation improves the results of primary angioplasty. METHODS: Patients presenting with AMI were randomly assigned to primary stenting (n = 62) or accelerated t-PA (n = 61). The primary end point was the composite of death, reinfarction, stroke or repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) for ischemia at six months. RESULTS: The primary end point was significantly reduced in the stent group compared with the accelerated t-PA group, 24.2% versus 55.7% (p < 0.001). The event rates for other outcomes in the stent group versus the t-PA group were as follows: mortality: 4.8% versus 3.3% (p = 1.00); reinfarction: 6.5% versus 16.4% (p = 0.096); stroke: 1.6% versus 4.9% (p = 0.36); recurrent unstable ischemia: 9.7% versus 26.2% (p = 0.03) and repeat TVR for ischemia: 14.5% versus 49.2% (p < 0.001). The median length of the initial hospitalization was four days in the stent group and seven days in the t-PA group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with accelerated t-PA, primary stenting reduces death, reinfarction, stroke or repeat TVR for ischemia. In centers where facilities and experienced interventionists are available, primary stenting offers an attractive alternative to thrombolysis.     

Diabetes mellitus and the clinical and angiographic outcome after coronary stent placement

Objectives. The objectives of this study were to analyze the clinical and angiographic outcome of diabetic patients with successful coronary stent placement and to compare these results with those achieved after stenting in nondiabetic patients.

Background. The outcome of diabetic patients treated with stent placement due to coronary artery disease has not been assessed comprehensively.

Methods. This study analyzes a consecutive series of patients with successful stent placement comprising 715 patients with diabetes and 2,839 patients without diabetes. Clinical one year follow-up and angiographic control at 6 months were part of the protocol. Death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization were considered as adverse events. An automated edge detection system was used for the angiographic assessment. The primary clinical endpoint was event-free survival at one year. The primary angiographic endpoint was restenosis rate at 6 months (≥50% diameter stenosis).

Results. Event-free survival was significantly lower in diabetic than in nondiabetic patients (73.1 vs. 78.5%, p < 0.001). Survival free of myocardial infarction was also significantly reduced in the diabetic group (89.9 vs. 94.4% in nondiabetics, p < 0.001). The incidence of both restenosis (37.5 vs. 28.3%, p < 0.001) and stent vessel occlusion (5.3 vs. 3.4%, p = 0.037) was significantly higher in diabetic patients. Diabetes was identified as an independent risk factor for adverse clinical events and restenosis in multivariate analyses.

Conclusions. Patients with diabetes mellitus have a less favorable clinical outcome at one year after successful stent placement as compared to the nondiabetic patients. The clinical follow-up was characterized by a higher incidence of death, myocardial infarction and reinterventions. Diabetic patients also demonstrated an increased risk for restenosis.     

Coronary intervention in the diabetic patient: improved outcome following stent implantation compared with balloon angioplasty

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients undergoing coronary interventional procedures are at increased risk of restenosis and adverse clinical events. The relative impact of stents compared with balloon angioplasty on the outcome of percutaneous intervention in diabetics remains controversial. HYPOTHESIS: The goal of this study was to determine whether stent placement was superior to balloon angioplasty in reducing restenosis of diabetic patients undergoing coronary intervention. METHODS: The STRESS Trial was a prospective randomized comparison of stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of new native coronary lesions. Of 594 randomized patients. 92 (16%) were diabetic. In this substudy analysis of the STRESS Trial, the outcomes after stenting and balloon angioplasty in diabetic patients were compared. The primary endpoint was restenosis as determined by angiography at 6 months. Clinical outcomes at 1 year were assessed. RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in 82% of diabetic patients assigned to angioplasty and in 100% assigned to stenting (p < 0.01). Compared with angioplasty, stenting resulted in a larger postprocedural lumen diameter (2.34 +/- 0.44 vs. 1.87 +/- 0.52 mm, p < 0.001) and greater acute luminal gain (1.61 +/- 0.47 vs. 1.06 +/- 0.46 mm, p < 0.001). At 6 months, stenting conferred a larger lumen (1.69 +/- 0.57 vs. 1.38 +/- 0.60 mm, p = 0.03) and greater net luminal gain (0.97 +/- 0.55 vs. 0.52 +/- 0.52 mm, p < 0.001). Restenosis occurred in 60% of the angioplasty group and in 24% of the stent group (p < 0.01). This was accompanied by a lower need for repeat target vessel revascularization after stenting (31 vs. 13%, p < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with balloon angioplasty, stent placement in diabetic patients with focal de novo lesions resulted in superior procedural results, reduced restenosis, and improved clinical outcome with fewer repeat revascularization procedures.     

Frequency, correlates, and clinical implications of myocardial perfusion after primary angioplasty and stenting, with and without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition, in acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the prognostic importance of myocardial reperfusion after various contemporary interventional strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: The frequency, correlates, and clinical implications of myocardial perfusion after primary angioplasty in AMI have not been examined in a large-scale prospective study. Similarly, whether glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors and/or stents improve myocardial perfusion beyond balloon angioplasty has not been investigated. METHODS: Tissue-level perfusion assessed by the myocardial blush grade was evaluated in 1,301 patients with AMI randomized to balloon angioplasty versus stenting, each with or without abciximab. RESULTS: Despite Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3 restoration in 96.1% of patients, myocardial perfusion was normal in only 17.4% of patients, reduced in 33.9%, and absent in 48.7%. Myocardial perfusion status post-coronary intervention stratified patients into three distinct risk categories, with 1-year mortality rates of 1.4% (normal blush), 4.1% (reduced blush), and 6.2% (absent blush) (p = 0.01). Among patients randomized to angioplasty, angioplasty + abciximab, stenting, and stenting + abciximab, normal myocardial perfusion was restored in 17.7%, 17.0%, 17.5%, and 17.6%, respectively (p = 0.95), which was associated with similar 1-year rates of mortality in patients randomized to stenting versus angioplasty (4.5% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.91) and abciximab versus no abciximab (4.3% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Restoration of normal tissue-level perfusion is a powerful determinate of survival after primary PCI in AMI and is achieved in a minority of patients. Neither stents nor GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors significantly enhance myocardial perfusion compared to balloon angioplasty alone, underlying the similar long-term mortality with these different mechanical reperfusion strategies.     

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.     

Influence of diabetes mellitus on outcome in the era of primary stenting for acute myocardial infarction.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of diabetes mellitus (DM) on the clinical and angiographic outcomes in 62 diabetic and 152 nondiabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with primary coronary stenting within 12 h of the onset of symptoms. The diabetic patients had a greater incidence of hyperlipidemia, prior myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel disease. There were no statistically significant differences in other variables. Procedural success was similar in the 2 groups. At a mean follow-up of 2.1 +/- 0.6 years, 13% of diabetic and 11% of nondiabetic patients had died (p = 0.70). The percentage of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 37% of diabetic and 20% of nondiabetic patients (p = 0.003). Rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, non-fatal MI, TVR) were 50% of diabetic and 32% of nondiabetic patients (p = 0.007). On multivariate analysis, DM was not a predictor of death. Independent predictors of death were age, multivessel disease, TIMI < or = 2 and cardiogenic shock. However, DM and age were independent predictors of MACE. In conclusion, DM is not an independent predictor of death in patients with AMI after stenting, but diabetic patients had a higher incidence of TVR, making DM an independent predictor of MACE.     

Long-term follow-up after primary angioplasty: is stenting beneficial?

BACKGROUND: Primary stenting leads to a better short-term outcome than balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in randomised trials. However few data are available about the long-term outcome of primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the three-year outcome after primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study including 157 patients with AMI in a single center. Patients underwent balloon angioplasty (N = 48) or primary stenting (N = 109) within six hours after the onset of chest pain. We looked at the outcome during three years focusing on global mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), reinterventions and target vessel revascularization (TVR). RESULTS: The two groups are similar for their baseline characteristics. No difference was noted for in-patient mortality in the balloon angioplasty group and the primary stenting group (2.1 vs 2.8%; P = ns). The three-year mortality was not significantly different in the two groups. Regarding MACE (27.8 vs 31.7; P = 0.95), reinterventions (20.4 vs 24.7%; P = 0.98) and TVR (18.6 vs 17.8%; P = 0.69), both groups were statistically not different. CONCLUSION: In the long-term patients treated with stent placement have similar rates of MACE, reinterventions or TVR than patients undergoing balloon angioplasty. If few studies noted a benefit in short-term outcomes, primary stenting doesn't improve the prognosis of acute myocardial infarction on long-term follow-up, which is dependent on atherosclerosis.     

Primary stenting in nonselected patients with acute myocardial infarction: the Multilink Duet in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MIAMI) trial.

Most randomized trials comparing primary stenting with primary coronary angioplasty (PTCA) excluded patients at high risk from enrollment, thus arising the important question about the generalizability of the randomized trial results to all patients with AMI. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a primary infarct-related artery (IRA) stenting strategy using a second-generation tubular stent in nonselected patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). All patients with AMI were considered eligible for primary IRA stenting. No restriction was made based on age or clinical status on presentation, or coronary anatomy, except in cases of a reference IRA diameter < 2.5 mm. The primary endpoint of the study was clinical target vessel failure defined as death, reinfarction, or repeat TVR due to restenosis or reocclusion of the IRA. Between June 1998 and March 1999, 201 consecutive patients with AMI underwent mechanical recanalization of the IRA. The mean age was 64 +/- 12, and 16% of patients were aged 75 years or over. The incidence of shock was 9%. Primary IRA stenting was performed in 89% of the patients. Patients who underwent PTCA alone had a smaller IRA diameter as compared to patients with a stented IRA (2.48 +/- 0.46 mm vs. 3.15 +/- 0.37 mm; P < 0.001). There were no stent deployment failures. The 6-month primary endpoint rate was 15% (2 deaths, 27 repeat TVR, 0 reinfarctions), while the 6-month angiographic restenosis rate was 22%. Primary IRA stenting in nonselected patients with AMI is highly feasible and associated with favorable clinical and angiographic outcomes. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 51:273-279, 2000.     

Comparison of outcomes of direct stenting versus stenting after balloon predilation in patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIRAMI)

Due to recent advances in stent design, stenting without balloon predilation (direct stenting) has become more extensively used in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We performed a randomized study with broad inclusion criteria and early randomization after presentation to compare direct stenting with stenting after balloon predilation in patients with AMI. A total of 248 patients was randomized. After exclusion of patients not suitable for stenting, the final study group comprised 217 patients. Direct stenting strategy was feasible in 88% of patients with no meaningful complications. Final Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 3 flow (96% vs 94%), final Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction myocardial perfusion grade 2 or 3 (68% vs 61%), and average ST-segment resolution after the procedure (49% vs 51%) were similar in the direct stenting and predilation groups, respectively (p = NS). Rate of in-stent restenosis was higher in the direct stenting group (30% vs 16%, p = 0.024), which was due to a worse angiographic result after the procedure. At 5 years, a composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, and target lesion revascularization had occurred in 39% in the direct stenting group and 34% in the predilated group (p = 0.40). In conclusion, although at 5 years clinical outcome did not differ significantly between groups, direct stenting was associated with a higher incidence of in-stent restenosis at 1 year. Direct stenting did not improve epicardial and myocardial reperfusion indexes. Direct stenting strategy should not be recommended in all patients with AMI as an alternative strategy to stenting after predilation.     

Feasibility and implications of an early discharge strategy after percutaneous intervention with abciximab in acute myocardial infarction (the CADILLAC Trial)

Early complications may hamper efforts to hasten discharge after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial infarction (MI). Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, by reducing early recurrent ischemia, may aid in these efforts. We examined whether adjunctive abciximab could accelerate discharge and reduce costs within a trial of primary PCI after acute MI. The CADILLAC trial randomized 2,082 patients with MI to 1 of 4 reperfusion strategies in a 2 x 2 factorial design: angioplasty, angioplasty with abciximab, stent implantation, or stenting with abciximab. Patients randomized to abciximab had postprocedural heparin withheld, and discharge scheduled for days 1.5 to 2 (low-risk patients) or days 2 to 3 (high-risk patients) after MI if they were stable. Other patients were discharged at the physician's discretion. Abciximab treatment was associated with significant reductions in the primary end points of in-hospital death, reinfarction, ischemic target vessel revascularization (TVR), or disabling stroke (5.6% vs 2.7%, p = 0.003)--largely reflecting reduced ischemic TVR (3.8% vs 1.4%, p = 0.002)--and in early subacute thrombosis (1.3% vs 0.2%, p = 0.01). Hospitalization was significantly shorter in abciximab-treated patients (median 3.1 vs 3.5 days, p <0.001), but total in-hospital costs did not differ significantly (13,413 +/- 5,309 US dollars vs 13,000 +/- 6,006 US dollars, p = 0.13). Rates of the composite end point did not differ significantly during the week after discharge (0.8% vs 0.2%, p = 0.10), nor did component event rates. Abciximab during primary PCI is associated with fewer early adverse outcomes, likely contributing to offset its cost. Hospitalizations after primary PCI are so short, however, that efforts to accelerate discharge with abciximab appear unfeasible, and overall costs remain unchanged.     

Effect of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockade with abciximab on clinical and angiographic restenosis rate after the placement of coronary stents following acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES: In the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen-2 trial (ISAR-2), we sought to investigate the effect of abciximab on angiographic and clinical restenosis after stenting following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We also intended to assess the impact of abciximab on clinical outcome in this setting. BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether abciximab reduces neointima formation after stenting. Such an effect may be particularly prominent in thrombus-containing lesions. METHODS: Patients undergoing stenting within 48 h after onset of AMI were randomly assigned to receive either standard-dose heparin or abciximab plus reduced-dose heparin. Of 401 patients randomized, 366 without 30-day adverse events were eligible for six-month angiographic follow-up. Scheduled angiography was performed in 80% of these patients. RESULTS: By 30 days, the composite clinical end point of death, reinfarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) was reached in 5.0% of the abciximab group and in 10.5% of the control group (p = 0.038). At one year, absolute reduction in the composite clinical end point by abciximab was still 5.7% but had lost its statistical significance. Our primary end point, late lumen loss, was 1.26+/-0.85 mm with abciximab and 1.21+/-0.74 mm with standard heparin (p = 0.61), and binary angiographic restenosis rates were 31.1% and 30.6%, respectively (p = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing stenting following AMI, abciximab exerted beneficial effects by substantially reducing the 30-day rate of major adverse cardiac events. During one-year follow-up, there was no additional benefit from a reduction in TLR nor did abciximab reduce angiographic restenosis.     

Abciximab therapy improves survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by early cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary artery stent implantation

The impact of abciximab therapy on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who are undergoing infarct-related artery (IRA) stent implantation, which is complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) due to predominant ventricular failure has not been established, whereas concluded randomized trials comparing IRA stenting plus abciximab with IRA stenting alone in patients with AMI have produced conflicting results. Moreover, these trials have excluded patients with CS from randomization. This study sought to determine whether IRA stenting plus abciximab treatment has an impact on 1-month mortality compared with IRA stenting alone in consecutive patients with AMI complicated by CS due to predominant ventricular failure. Of 77 patients with CS and IRA stenting, 44 had abciximab therapy, whereas 33 underwent primary IRA stenting alone. There were no differences between groups in major baseline characteristics except for a higher incidence of women in the stent alone group compared with the abciximab group (36% vs 14%, p = 0.020). The 1-month overall mortality rate was 18% in the abciximab group and 42% in the stent alone group (p <0.020). There were no differences between groups in reinfarction and target vessel revascularization rates. Multivariate analysis showed that abciximab therapy was the only variable that was independently related to 1-month mortality (odds ratio 0.36; 95% confidence intervals 0.15 to 0.86, p = 0.021). The results of this study support the use of abciximab in patients with AMI complicated by CS who are undergoing IRA stent implantation. The mechanism of the clinical benefit of abciximab at 1 month was not related to the patency of the IRA.     

A comparison of the clinical and angiographic evolution of diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated by conventional angioplasty versus stent implantation in native coronary arteries

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Diabetic patients have a high restenosis risk after balloon coronary angioplasty. Stent implantation in these patients appears to be a potential beneficial therapeutic option. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and angiographic outcome of diabetic patients vs non-diabetic patients, treated with conventional angioplasty vs stent implantation in lesions located in native coronary arteries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 302 patients (58 diabetics and 244 non-diabetics) underwent a coronary angioplasty of one vessel in native coronary arteries with initial success and after at least six months clinical and angiographic follow-up were included in the study. Of the total number of patients, 100 were treated with conventional balloon angioplasty and 202 with stent implantation. Major adverse clinical events and angiographic restenosis rate were evaluated at follow-up. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 65 years and 74% were male. Angiographic restenosis rate was similar in diabetic vs non-diabetic patients with stent implantation (24% vs 23% respectively). Nevertheless, diabetic patients treated with balloon angioplasty compared to diabetic patients treated with stenting, evolved with a higher restenosis rate (64% vs 24%; p < 0.05), and at the end of follow-up diabetics had need a higher rate of target vessel revascularization (40% vs 24%; p < 0.05), a lower major event free survival (56% vs 70%; p < 0.05) and worse symptomatic status (72% vs 36%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients treated with conventional one vessel coronary balloon angioplasty evolved with a high restenosis rate and a bad mid-term clinical outcome. Stent implantation was able reduce to the restenosis rate and improve the mid-term clinical outcome, in a comparable population of diabetic patients.     

Percutaneous and surgical interventions for in-stent restenosis: long-term outcomes and effect of diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE: We examined long-term outcomes of patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) who underwent different percutaneous interventions at the discretion of individual operators: balloon angioplasty (BA), repeat stent or rotational atherectomy (RA). We also examined long-term outcomes of patients with ISR who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). BACKGROUND: In-stent restenosis remains a challenging problem, and its optimal management is still unknown. METHODS: Symptomatic patients (n = 510) with ISR were identified using cardiac catheterization laboratory data. Management for ISR included BA (169 patients), repeat stenting (117 patients), RA (107 patients) or CABG (117 patients). Clinical outcome events of interest included death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and a combined end point of these major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Mean follow-up was 19+/-12 months (range = 6 to 61 months). RESULTS: Patients with ISR treated with repeat stent had significantly larger average post-procedure minimal lumen diameter compared with BA or RA (3.3+/-0.4 mm vs. 3.0+/-0.4 vs. 2.9+/-0.5, respectively, p < 0.05). Incidence of TVR and MACE were similar in the BA, stent and RA groups (39%, 40%, 33% for TVR and 43%, 40%, 33% for MACE, p = NS). Patients with diabetes who underwent RA had similar outcomes as patients without diabetes, while patients with diabetes who underwent BA or stent had worse outcomes than patients without diabetes. Patients who underwent CABG for ISR, mainly because of the presence of multivessel disease, had significantly better outcomes than any percutaneous treatment (8% for TVR and 23% for MACE). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of patients with ISR and in the subset of patients without diabetes, long-term outcomes were similar in the BA, repeat stent and RA groups. Tissue debulking with RA yielded better results only in diabetic patients. Bypass surgery for patients with multivessel disease and ISR provided the best outcomes.     

Drug‐eluting stents in bifurcation lesions: To stent one branch or both?

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare two techniques to treat bifurcation lesions: a single drug-eluting stent (DES) implanted in the main branch combined with balloon dilatation for the side branch vs. stenting of both branches (double stent). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention in coronary bifurcation lesions remains challenging. Although DES reduce restenosis in lesions, the double stent procedure has not shown clear advantages over a single stent with balloon dilation. METHODS: Fifty-three symptomatic patients with true bifurcation lesions were treated using either the double stent technique (n = 25) or one stent in the parent vessel plus balloon angioplasty of the side branch (n = 28). Procedural results and major adverse cardiac event rates (MACE: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR)) were compared. RESULTS: Angiographic procedural success (residual stenosis <30% in both branches) was 75% in the single stent group and 100% in the double stent group (P = 0.01). All differences were due to residual stenosis of the side branch. Clinical follow-up (6-18 months) was available for all patients; 90.5% of patients had a coronary angiography or nuclear stress test. Three patients (11%) in the single stent group and two (8%) in the double stent group had ischemia-driven TVR (P = NS). Asymptomatic angiographic restenosis (>50% diameter stenosis) in the ostium of the side branch was seen in two patients in the double-stent group. At 6 months, MACE-free was comparable between groups (89.3% vs. 88%, P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: When treating bifurcation lesions with sirolimus-eluting stents, restenosis following a single stent procedure is comparable to stenting both parent and side branch vessels. Thus, stenting the main-branch lesion, coupled with balloon angioplasty in the side branch, produces a high success rate and good clinical outcomes at 6 months.