Drug-eluting stents: from the results of clinical studies to economic simulation models in the Italian reality]

Several studies with drug-eluting stents (DES) have demonstrated dramatic reductions in restenosis rates compared with bare metal stents (BMS). Although the clinical benefits of DES are increasingly evident, important concerns about their costs have been raised. Most data regarding the impact of restenosis on long-term costs after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are derived from clinical trials. These studies demonstrate that there is no single cost or economic burden of restenosis; these values vary substantially according to the specific patient population under investigation and to the healthcare system reality where they are applied. In the present study we propose an economic interactive decision model which was applied to the Italian healthcare system, considering the different reimbursement rates of the Italian regions for DES and for both PCI and coronary artery bypass surgical interventions (CABG). The aim of this model was to simulate the impact of DES introduction after potential complete reimbursement by the national healthcare system, hypothesizing the usage of 1.4 stent per patient in case of single vessel disease and 2.4 stents in case of multivessel disease, and utilizing the TAXUS IV rate of revascularization for reintervention costs calculation and the ARTS-I study for CABG costs. For a low risk patients' population, the mean cost of a procedure with DES was 6% greater than utilizing BMS (xi 8125 for DES vs xi 7651 for BMS). However, this percentage was reduced in case of diabetic patients (+4%), long lesions (+2%) and was favourable for small vessels (-3%). In addition, in case of multivessel disease with conversion from CABG to DES, the 12 months cost per patients was reduced of around 30% (xi 10 170 for PCI vs xi 14 584 for CABG). This model suggests that national healthcare system may save 2.1% of the total costs (xi 18.60 millions) if 60% of revascularization procedures converts to total DES utilization and 15% from CABG to PCI with DES.     

Drug-eluting stenting is superior to bare metal stenting in saphenous vein grafts.

This study compared the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) with drug-eluting stents (DES) with bare metal stents (BMS). PCI of degenerated SVG is associated with worse outcomes and high incidence of in-stent restenosis compared with PCI of native coronary arteries. There is a paucity of data on the outcomes of PCI of SVG with DES. Data from 223 consecutive patients who underwent PCI of SVG were imputed into a dedicated clinical database. We assessed the clinical outcomes at a mean follow-up of 9.1+/-2.1 months. A total of 139 patients underwent PCI of SVG with DES and 84 patients with BMS. The mean age of the SVG was 7.6+/-3.8 years in the DES group and 7.7+/-2.8 years in the BMS group (P=0.38). Procedural success was achieved in all patients except for one patient in the BMS group who underwent emergent coronary artery bypass graft surgery for SVG dissection. There were no other in-hospital cardiac events in both groups. There was one cardiac death in the DES group and three deaths in the BMS group (P=0.03). When compared to the BMS, PCI of SVG with DES was associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 20.2%; P=0.04) and target vessel revascularization (10.1% vs. 36.9%; P=0.035). When compared with BMS, PCI of SVG with DES was associated with a lower incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.     

Benefits of drug eluting stents versus bare metal stents in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a contemporary review

The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in reducing the rates of in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in stable coronary artery disease has been well demonstrated. Thus, the Food and Drug Administration has approved the utilization of DES for stable coronary disease. However, there is still much debate surrounding the implantation of DES for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) given safety concerns about the possibility of increased rates of stent thrombosis with DES. The review of the current body of evidence comparing DES with BMS is consistent with results from previous trials in stable coronary disease and reveals lower rates of revascularization with DES in STEMI patients. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriate stent during PCI needs to be individualized as patients' compliance with dual antiplatelet therapy is critical. The data suggest that PCI with DES in STEMI patients who adhere to long-term dual antiplatelet therapy is safe and effective. Randomized trials with longer-term follow-up are necessary to better elucidate the safety and efficacy of DES versus BMS in patients with STEMI.     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉小血管病变的疗效分析

目的通过分析比较裸金属支架(BMS)与药物洗脱支架[DES,包括雷帕霉素(Cypher)支架和紫杉醇(TAXUS)支架]治疗冠状动脉小血管病变疗效的差异,为DES治疗多支及单支小血管病变冠心病提供依据。方法连续入选2002年12月至2005年5月沈阳军区总医院首次接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)、靶血管为小血管病变且达到完全血运重建的486例患者,其中多支小血管病变(多支)150例。分为BMS组214例(多支63例)、Cypher组140例(多支46例)和TAXUS组132例(多支41例),对比分析各组患者住院期间及随访6个月的临床情况。结果3组患者冠脉病变特点、PCI成功率及住院期间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率等指标差异均无显著性(P>0·05)。冠脉造影随访显示,两个DES组再狭窄率均明显低于BMS(Cypher组4·9%,TAXUS组7·5%对BMS组29·2%,P<0·05),随访期间MACE发生率亦明显低于BMS(Cypher组2·9%,TAXUS组3·9%对BMS组12·0%,P<0·01)。进一步分析多支小血管病例,发现两个DES组的再狭窄率及随访期间MACE发生率仍然明显低于BMS组(再狭窄率Cypher组6·7%,TAXUS组7·1%对BMS组37·5%,P<0·05;MACE发生率Cypher组4·1%,TAXUS组4·8%对BMS组21·0%,P<0·05)。结论Cypher和TAXUS支架治疗小血管病变安全可行,疗效显著,治疗多支小血管病变可得到相同的疗效。     

Safety and Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Bypass Graft Percutaneous Coronary Interventions : Insights From the Veterans Affairs CART Program

Background

Stenosis of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is common and often requires percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for treatment. However, data for the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in SVG-PCI are unclear.

Objectives

This study sought to examine the association between DES versus BMS used during SVG PCI and clinical outcomes in the national Veterans Affairs integrated healthcare system.

Methods

We studied a national cohort of 2,471 post-CABG veterans undergoing SVG-PCI between 2008 and 2011 at all Veterans Affairs hospitals and compared clinical outcomes of between those receiving DES and BMS. Clinical outcomes included procedural complications, myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality. Comparisons were made in a propensity-matched cohort using Cox proportional hazards regression models.

Results

DES were used in 1,549 SVG-PCI patients (63%) and the use of DES increased progressively with each calendar year (50% in 2008 to 69% in 2011). Incidence of procedural complications was low and comparable in both groups (2.8% among BMS vs. 2.3% among DES patients; p = 0.54). During long-term (>2 years) follow-up, use of DES was associated with lower mortality than BMS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 0.89) and similar rates of MI (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.24) in the propensity-matched cohort.

Conclusions

In a national cohort of veterans, we observed widespread and increasing use of DES during SVG-PCI. In long-term follow-up, compared with BMS, DES use was safe and effective in SVG-PCI patients.     

Stent thrombosis is a major concern in clinical practice: A single Saudi center experience

BackgroundDrug-eluting stents (DES) are used in the majority of patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and have reduced the rate of in-stent restenosis and repeated revascularization in comparison to bare metal stents. However, stent thrombosis (ST) is an uncommon but serious complication of coronary artery stents that is mostly fatal or presents as a large non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), usually with ST elevation.ObjectiveTo study the incidence of stent thrombosis in Middle Eastern Saudi patients who underwent PCI using both drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS). ST can occur acutely (within 24 h), sub acutely (within 30 days), or as late as one year (late) or even more than one year (very late).MethodsIn an observational, single center study in catheterization (cath) lab a total of 1386 patients underwent PCI between January 2008 and September 2010. The study included all patients in that period who had acute coronary syndrome and stable coronary artery disease (CAD).ResultsA total of 1386 patients had PCI and stent deployments; 19 (1.3%) patients had stent thrombosis, four patients (21%) received BMS and 15 patients (79%) received DES. Four patients had acute ST; five had subacute ST; eight patients had late ST; while two patients had very late ST. Nine patients (47%) had DM and eight patients (42%) had hypertension.ConclusionThe incidence of ST in Saudi patients who received DES at our center is similar to internationally reported numbers. Almost half of ST patients are diabetics and there is increasing concern that the risk for late stent thrombosis is slightly higher with DES than BMS.     

Drug-eluting stent-supported percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total coronary occlusion.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the clinical and angiographic outcomes after drug-eluting stent (DES)-supported percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO). BACKGROUND: There are few data about the efficacy of DES-supported PCI for CTO. METHODS: All consecutive patients who had a sirolimus-eluting stent or a paclitaxel-eluting stent implanted for CTO from December 2003 to December 2004 were analyzed. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with DES were compared with a case-matched control group of patients treated with bare metal stents (BMS) in the 12 months before the routine use of DES. RESULTS: Successful DES-supported PCI was performed in 92 patients and 104 CTO. The case-matched control group consisted of 26 patients and 27 CTO successfully treated with BMS. There were no differences between groups in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Stent length in the DES group was higher as compared with that of BMS group (51+/-28 mm vs. 40+/-19 mm, P=0.073). The 6-month major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was lower in the DES group as compared with that of BMS group (9.8% vs. 23%, P=0.072). The angiographic follow-rate was 80% in the DES group and 81% in the BMS group. The 6-month restenosis rate was 19% in the DES group and 45% in the BMS group (P<0.001). By multivariate analysis, it was found that in the DES group, the only predictors of restenosis were stented segment length (OR 1.031, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, P=0.009) and a target vessel reference diameter<2.5 mm (OR 6.48, 95% CI 1.51-27.83, P=0.012), while the only predictor of MACE was stent length (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08, P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: DES implantation for CTO decreases the risk of mid-term restenosis and MACE. Small vessels and diffuse disease requiring the implantation of multiple stents and very long stents for full coverage of the target lesion are still associated with a relatively high risk of restenosis.     

Short- and long-term benefits of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents even in treatment for large coronary arteries

Although drug-eluting stents (DES) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have dramatically reduced the incidence of in-stent restenosis, their deployment for large-size coronary lesions is still controversial because of problems such as late in-stent thrombosis and late catch-up in DES. We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome beyond 2 years of bare metal stents (BMS) as compared with DES in large vessels. Consecutive 228 patients who underwent PCI with large-size stents (>3.5 mm in diameter) in our hospital were enrolled in this study. The end points of this study are target lesion revascularization (TLR) and occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) for subject patients. We analyzed 183 patients (152 men, mean age 65.8 ± 10.5 years) whose outcome could be followed up for at least 2 years. At the first 8-month follow-up, clinically driven TLR rate was significantly higher in patients who received BMS than those who received DES (17.2 vs. 2.2 %, p < 0.05), although the rate of TLR was not different between the 2 groups beyond 8 months. Thus, overall rate of TLR was higher in BMS than in DES (22.7 vs. 5.4 %, p < 0.05). Under these conditions, the higher rate of TLR for BMS was observed in simple as well as complex lesions with or without diabetes, although there were no significant differences in MACE between BMS and DES. Multivariate analysis showed that BMS was an only independent factor of TLR at the 8 month follow-up period [p = 0.004, odds ratio 9.58, 95 % confidence interval (2.10–43.8)]. These results demonstrate that the rate of in-stent restenosis in large-size coronary lesions was transiently higher in the first 8 months for patients implanted with BMS compared with DES in which no in-stent thrombosis and TLR beyond 2 years were observed. We suggest using the DES even in large-size coronary lesions in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.     

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.     

The risks and benefits of drug-eluting stents in the setting of STEMI

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents the treatment of choice in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In randomized trials excluding STEMI patients, using drug-eluting stents (DES) significantly reduced angiographic restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared with bare metal stents (BMS); however, concerns exist regarding an increased follow-up incidence of stent thrombosis after DES implantation. This complication, which is associated with higher mortality and morbidity rates, may be more frequent among STEMI patients receiving DES versus BMS. Various registries, randomized trials, and two recent meta-analyses on patients undergoing primary PCI have shown that using DES is safe and is associated with significantly reduced rates of restenosis and repeat intervention without an increased risk of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis at intermediate-term follow-up. However, large trials with hard clinical end points and longer follow-up are needed before routine DES use can be recommended in patients undergoing primary PCI.     

Safety and efficacy of drug‐eluting stent for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction in an unselected consecutive cohort

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the clinical outcome of a large cohort of patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with drug‐eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS). Background: Several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that PCI with the routine use of DES is safe and effective in patients with STEMI. However as randomized trials have strict inclusion criteria, further studies in unselected patient populations are needed. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the Mayo Clinic PCI database. A total of 552 consecutive STEMI patients who underwent a DES implantation between May 2003 and April 2006 were included in the study and compared to 557 who had BMS for STEMI earlier. No specific patient subsets were excluded. Results: Procedural success was achieved in 532 patients (96%). During initial hospitalization, 16 patients (2.9%) died and 8 (1.5%) suffered from a recurrent myocardial infarction. The median follow‐up was 23 months (IQR: 13–27 months). At 12 months post discharge, the rate of target lesion revascularization and death were 2.9% and 3.7%, respectively, and survival free of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 90.9%. These rates were similar to or lower than those of patients treated for STEMI with BMS prior to the availability of DES. Conclusion: DES are safe and effective in the treatment of STEMI in an unselected cohort; 90.9% of patients are free of MACE at 12 months post discharge. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Second- and third-generation drug-eluting coronary stents: progress and safety

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have revolutionized the treatment of coronary artery disease by reducing the rate of in-stent restenosis from 20-40% with bare-metal stent (BMS) to 6-8% with DES. However, with widespread use of DES, safety concerns have risen due to the observation of late stent thrombosis. With this in mind and better understanding of mechanism and pathophysiology of stent thrombosis, the technological platform, especially innovative anti-restenotic agents, polymeric coatings, and stent platforms, improved with newer DES. Two second-generation DES, the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) and the Xience-V everolimus-eluting stent (EES), have provided promising results in both randomized controlled trials (SPIRIT and ENDEAVOR) and registries (E-Five, COMPARE) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and first-generation DES. Newer third-generation stent technology, especially biodegradable polymers, polymer-free stents, and biodegradable stents on the basis of poly-L-lactide (PLLA) or magnesium, has been evaluated in preclinical and initial clinical trials. However, despite encouraging initial results, long-term data of large-scale randomized trials as well as registries comparing them to currently approved first- and second-generation DES are still lacking.     

Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary disease

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) constitute a major breakthrough in restenosis prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study compared the clinical outcomes of PCI using DES versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) in real-world. METHODS: From January 2003 to December 2004, 466 consecutive patients with MVD underwent revascularization, 235 by PCI with DES and 231 by CABG. The study end-point was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) at the first 30 days after procedure and during follow-up. RESULTS: Most preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups, but left main disease (24.7% vs 2.6%, P<0.001) and three-vessel disease (65% vs 54%, P = 0.02) were more prevalent in CABG group. The number of coronary lesions was also greater in CABG group (3.7 +/- 1.1 vs 3.3 +/- 1.1, P<0.001). Despite higher early morbidity (3.9% vs 0.8%, P = 0.03) associated with CABG, there were no significant differences in composite MACEs at the first 30 days between the two groups. During follow-up (mean 25+/-8 months), the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular event was similar in both groups (PCI 6.3% vs CABG 5.6%, P = 0.84). However, bypass surgery still afforded a lower need for repeat revascularization (2.8% vs 10.4%, p = 0.001). Consequently, overall MACE rate (14.5% vs 7.9%, P = 0.03) remained higher after PCI. CONCLUSION: PCI with DES is a safe and feasible alternative to CABG for selected patients with MVD. The reintervention gap was further narrowed in the era of DES. Aside from restenosis, progression of disease needs to receive substantial emphasis.     

冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者置入药物洗脱支架的疗效评价

目的 评价冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者冠状动脉病变置入药物洗脱支架后的疗效。方法 选择我院2004年4月至2005年8月连续接受置入药物洗脱支架（DES）或金属裸支架（BMS）治疗并且进行了冠状动脉造影随访的139例的冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者。所有患者在支架术后6个月后接受冠状动脉造影随访。结果共139例患者（男性114例,女性25例）221处病变完成随访。其中C型病变94处（42．5％）,完全闭塞病变42处（19．0％）,平均每个病变支架长度（26．53±14．72）mm,平均参考血管直径（2．80±0．43）mm。两组患者在性别比例和年龄方面差异无统计学意义。两组在冠心病的危险因素如：高血压病、高脂血症、吸烟等方面差异无统计学意义。两组病变的复杂程度基本相当。DES组的参考血管直径比BMS组小[（2．71±0．41）mm比（2．98±0．53）mm,P〈0．001]。6个月后随访,DES组的支架内再狭窄率（10．6％比38．6％,P〈0．001）和病变内晚期腔径丢失[（0．24±0．56）mm比（0．91±0．77）mm,P〈0．001]明显低于BMS组。DES组的靶病变血管重建率显著低于BMS组（8．6％比30．0％,P〈0．001）。DES组有4例晚期支架内血栓。结论 本研究显示药物洗脱支架对于冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者冠状动脉病变的介入治疗有着良好的治疗效果,明显优于金属裸支架。     

Late loss of early benefit from drug-eluting stents when compared with bare-metal stents and coronary artery bypass surgery: 3 years follow-up of the ERACI III registry.

Aims: Long-term benefit from coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES) relative to bare metal stents (BMS) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has not been established. One year follow-up of the ERACI III registry study showed better outcome with DES. To compare major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates in patients with multivessel cardiovascular disease (CVD) who received DES with those patients treated with BMS or CABG in the ERACI II trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with multivessel CVD who met the ERACI II trial, clinical and angiographic inclusion criteria were treated with DES and enrolled in the ERACI III registry. The primary endpoint was 3-year MACCE. ERACI III-DES patients (n = 225) were compared with the BMS (n = 225) and CABG (n = 225) arms of ERACI II. Patients treated with DES were older, more often smokers, more often high risk by euroSCORE and less frequently had unstable angina. They also had higher incidence of type C lesions and received more stents than the BMS-treated cohort. Three year MACCE was lower in ERACI III-DES (22.7%) than in ERACI II-BMS (29.8%, P = 0.015), mainly reflecting less target vessel revascularization (14.2 vs. 24.4%, P = 0.009). MACCE rates at 3 years were similar in DES and CABG-treated patients (22.7%, P = 1.0), in contrast to results at 1 year (12 vs. 19.6%, P = 0.038). MACCE rates in ERACI III-DES were higher in diabetics (RR 0.81, 0.66-0.99; P = 0.018). Death or non-fatal MI at 3 years trended higher in the DES (10.2%) than BMS cohort (6.2%, P = 0.08) and lower than in CABG patients (15.1%, P = 0.07). Sub-acute late-stent thrombosis (LST) (>30 days) occurred in nine DES patients and no BMS patients (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In patients with multivessel CVD, the initial advantage for PCI with DES over CABG observed at 1 year was not apparent by 3 years. Furthermore, despite continued lower incidence of MACCE, initial advantage over BMS appeared to decrease with time. LST occurred more frequent in DES-treated patients.     

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。     

Cost-benefit of drug eluting stents--time for a reality check

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) are currently being used in preference to bare stents in the public hospital system in 'high risk' lesions on the basis of cost-effectiveness analyses using data from trials which exaggerate their impact and do not include several categories of 'high risk'. This study aimed to assess the real cost-effectiveness of DES using prospectively collected outcome data from consecutive patients in the immediate pre-DES era. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective database on all percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed by one operator in the two years prior to DES introduction (July 2000-June 2002) was used in which 12-month follow-up was complete in 96%. In 490 patients, 510 PCI were undertaken on 650 lesions (298 'high risk') using 686 stents. Angiography-proven clinical restenosis occurred in 31 lesions (5%) in 27 patients (12 focal, 19 diffuse; 11 treated with CABG, 14 with repeat PCI [4 re-restenosed-3 re-rePCI, 1 CABG] and 2 treated medically) with 2 deaths (both post-CABG). If all 'high risk' lesions had been treated with DES (assuming 0% clinical restenosis) then 22 lesions in 18 patients would not have restenosed avoiding 8 CABG and 13 re-PCI. Assuming A 5186 dollars cost for re PCI and A 18,496 dollars for CABG, DES will only be cost neutral for 'high risk' lesions when the premium for DES reduces to 617 dollars (currently 1500 dollars) and for all lesions at 452 dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Current strategies for use of DES are not cost-effective. DES should be reserved for restenosis until the price comes down.     

Effect of coronary endothelial function on outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Numerous studies have documented the association between endothelial dysfunction and adverse cardiovascular events. For example, coronary artery disease is associated with functional and structural changes of the coronary arteries, resulting in ischemia or plaque rupture, and is highly associated with endothelial dysfunction. Recent data suggest that implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) can induce coronary artery endothelial dysfunction at follow-up when compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and that this endothelial dysfunction may be associated with late stent thrombosis. Indeed, despite the superiority of DES in preventing restenosis, the incidence of death and myocardial infarction is similar when comparing DES with BMS. Medical treatment, such as statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin receptor blockers, can improve endothelial dysfunction. Thus, administration of these drugs along with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may be a low-risk strategy to provide therapeutic benefit by stabilizing unstable plaque or by suppressing new lesion formation in patients undergoing PCI.     

Revascularization in the high-risk patient: multivessel disease

The aim of this article is to review the treatment of patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been challenging coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the gold standard of care for patients with multi-vessel disease; however, the application of PCI to these patients has been mainly limited by restenosis. Up to the late 1990s, numerous large-scale, randomized trials addressed this issue comparing CABG to PCI with balloon angioplasty or bare-metal stents. These studies demonstrated similar rates of death and myocardial infarction in both groups, while the need for revascularization remained significantly lower in the CABG group. Drug-eluting stents (DES) have dramatically reduced restenosis and repeat revascularization rates. CABG has also progressed with improvements in perioperative management, a higher use of arterial grafting, and advanced techniques with the implementation of minimally invasive and off-pump surgery as options. Therefore, the results of previous trials in the pre-DES era can no longer be extrapolated into the 'real world'. As intermediate steps preceding a fully-fledged, randomized trial, several trials have compared PCI with DES and the historical control of CABG, but the results are still inconclusive. Several dedicated randomized trials are currently ongoing to compare PCI with DES and CABG using contemporary techniques. Until the results of these randomized trials are presented, the choice for each strategy should be based on the patients' individual risk and anatomy.     

药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗弥漫病变的比较研究

目的比较冠心病患者弥漫病变采用药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗的近期和远期预后,分析影响这类病变介入治疗预后的危险因素。方法研究对象为我院2004年4月至2005年8月接受置入单个长度>25.0mm支架治疗并且进行冠状动脉造影随访的205例患者,排除支架置入失败及支架置入位置不理想者。分为置入药物洗脱支架(DES)组(n=128)和置入金属裸支架(BMS)组(n=77)。所有的患者术后均接受阿司匹林300mg、氯吡格雷75mg等规范药物治疗。手术成功判定标准为至少用相互垂直的两个投照体位行冠状动脉造影,肉眼判定残余狭窄<20%和前向血流TIMI3级。再狭窄判定标准以复查冠状动脉造影定量分析支架内或支架邻近血管管腔直径狭窄程度≥50%。患者在支架术后6个月左右接受冠状动脉造影随访。结果共205例患者(男性181例,女性24例)227个靶病变置入382枚支架完成造影随访。其中C型病变占总数的93.8%,B2型病变为6.2%。双支或双支以上血管病变的患者比例达到86.8%。平均术前参考血管直径(2.88±0.43)mm。平均每个病变支架长度(40.09±12.94)mm,54.2%的病变接受了重叠置入支架。比较置入DES组和置入BMS组,两组的患者基本条件差异无统计学意义,在病变基本条件方面,DES组术前参考血管直径明显小于BMS组[(2.80±0.37)mm比(3.10±0.48)mm,P=0.005]。6个月随访结果显示再狭窄率DES组(15.4%)小于BMS组(48.4%),P<0.001。晚期支架内腔径丢失BMS组明显大于DES组[(0.94±0.76)mm比(0.39±0.53)mm,P<0.001]。靶病变血管重建率DES要明显好于BMS(11.6%比38.5%,P<0.001)。支架内再狭窄在置入DES组的局限性再狭窄比例大于置入BMS组(33.3%比18.2%,P=0.029)。对影响复杂弥漫病变支架再狭窄因素的多元logistic回归分析发现,采用支架重叠置入(OR=2.82,P=0.017)和支架类型(OR=5.71,P<0.001)是对复杂弥漫病变支架内再狭窄影响最大的危险因素。结论我们的研究发现对于复杂弥漫病变的治疗,药物洗脱支架有着良好的治疗效果,较金属裸支架能明显减低再狭窄率。对于弥漫病变,我们应该使用长支架,尽可能减少支架重叠置入的数量。