Immediate procedural and long-term clinical outcomes following drug-eluting stent implantation to ostial saphenous vein graft lesions

BACKGROUND: Ostial saphenous vein graft (OSVG) lesions were excluded from all the clinical trials demonstrating significantly lower restenosis rates with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DES in OSVG lesions by assessing angiographic and 12-month clinical outcomes. METHODS: 70 consecutive patients (70 OSVG lesions) underwent coronary stent implantation between May 2003 and April 2006: 37 lesions received DES and 33 lesions BMS. Endpoints were all cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), examined separately and as a combined end-point (major adverse cardiac events, MACE). RESULTS: Procedural (94.6% for DES and 87.9% for BMS) and angiographic (100% for DES and 100% for BMS) success did not differ between the two groups. The only in-hospital events were non-Q wave MI (DES 8.1% versus BMS 12.1%, P=0.69). At 30-day follow-up, there were no other events. Overall, at 1-year follow-up, the BMS group had a higher TLR (30.3% versus 5.4%, P=0.015), TVR (33.3% versus 10.8%, P=0.045) and MACE rate (36.4% versus 10.8%, P=0.024) compared to the DES group. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-eluting stent implantation to OSVG lesions achieves better clinical results than BMS but is still associated with a relatively high incidence (10.8%) of revascularization at 1-year follow-up.     

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)     

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

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

Treatment of saphenous vein graft lesions with drug-eluting stents: immediate and midterm outcome

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present report was to evaluate clinical and angiographic outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions. BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of DES implantation for the treatment SVG lesions remains uncertain. METHODS: We evaluated in-hospital and six-month outcomes in 61 consecutive patients treated with DES in SVG lesions from March 2002 to March 2004 (DES group), as compared to 89 consecutive patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) in the 24 months immediately before the introduction of DES (BMS group). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were recorded in-hospital and at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: The rate of in-hospital MACE was similar between the two groups (6.6% vs. 5.6%, p = 1.0). Cumulative MACE at six months was 11.5% in the DES group and 28.1% in the BMS group (p = 0.02). The DES group had a significantly lower incidence of in-segment restenosis (10.0% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.03), TLR (3.3% vs. 19.8%, p = 0.003), and TVR (4.9% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.003). By Cox regression analysis, diabetes (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33 to 6.90; p = 0.008), usage of BMS (HR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.07 to 5.97; p = 0.03), and age of SVG (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.19; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of MACE at six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to BMS implantation, DES implantation in SVG lesions appears safe with favorable and improved mid-term outcomes.     

中国冠心病患者接受不同支架治疗预后的荟萃分析

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

Comparing the use of cobalt chromium stents to stainless steel stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: A prospective registry

Objectives: To determine clinical outcome and rates of target vessel revascularization (TVR) in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI who were treated with cobalt-chromium stents compared to stainless steel bare metal stents (BMS).

Background: The newer generation cobalt chromium stents were reported to achieve lower rates of TVR compared with conventional BMS.

Methods: Consecutive STEMI cases admitted within 12 h of symptom onset and undergoing primary angioplasty and bare metal stent implantation 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2008 were identified. Primary outcomes were rates of clinically-driven TVR at six months as well as occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) either of all-cause death, repeat myocardial infarction or TVR at six months.

Results: 1030 cases with 1175 lesions (84% males) and median age of 58 years underwent primary PCI for STEMI in our registry. Overall procedural success rate was 98%. Stainless steel stents were inserted in 65% of the culprit lesions (stainless steel, n = 766 versus cobalt chromium, n = 264). Primary outcomes of TVR (3.5% in the stainless steel group and 3.4% in the cobalt chromium group, P = 0.93) and MACE (8.4% in the stainless steel group and 5.3% in the cobalt chromium group, P = 0.11) after six months were no different between the two groups. However, there were more deaths at 30 days in the stainless steel group compared to the cobalt chromium group (3.5% versus 0.4%, HR 4.04 (1.03–3.88), P = 0.04).

Conclusion: Both cobalt-chromium and stainless steel coronary stents were associated with similar and low risk of clinically-driven TVR.     

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.     

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.     

Drug-Eluting Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention: An Updated Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BackgroundDrug eluting stents (DES) are preferred over bare metal stents (BMS) for native coronary artery revascularization unless contraindicated. However, the preferred stent choice for saphenous venous graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is unclear due to conflicting results.MethodsPubMed, Clinical trials registry and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2018. Seven studies (n = 1639) comparing DES versus BMS in SVG-PCI were included. Endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), in-stent thrombosis, binary in-stent restenosis, and late lumen loss (LLL).ResultsOverall, during a mean follow up of 32.1 months, there was no significant difference in the risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, MI, stent thrombosis, TVR and TLR between DES and BMS. However, short-term follow up (mean 11 months) showed lower rate of MACE (OR 0.66 [0.51, 0.85]; p = 0.002), TVR (OR 0.47 [0.23, 0.97]; p = 0.04) and binary in-stent restenosis (OR 0.14 [0.06, 0.37]; p < 0.0001) in DES as compared with BMS. This benefit was lost on long-term follow up with a mean follow up 35.5 months.ConclusionIn this meta-analysis of SVG-PCI, DES use was associated with similar MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, MI, in-stent thrombosis, TVR and TLR compared with BMS during long-term follow up. There was high incidence of MACE noted in both DES and BMS suggesting a need for exploring novel strategies to treat SVG disease to improve clinical outcomes.     

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

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

药物洗脱支架在老年急性心肌梗死患者治疗中疗效观察

目的评价药物洗脱支架治疗老年ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死（AMI）患者的安全性和有效性。方法连续性收集2005年1月-12月行直接介入治疗的105例60岁及以上的老年ST段抬高型AMI患者，其中，49例接受药物洗脱支架植入，56例接受金属裸支架植入，对两组患者术后30d和240d的主要心血管不良事件（包括死亡、非致死性再梗死和靶血管血运重建）进行随访、分析。结果药物洗脱支架组和金属裸支架组的手术成功率差异无统计学意义（96％与95％，P〉0．05）。术后30d内，药物洗脱支架组和金属裸支架组的心脏不良事件发生率差异无统计学意义（8、2％与12．5％，P〉0.05），两组由冠状动脉造影证实的早期支架内血栓发生率差异无统计学意义（2．0％与1．8％，P〉0.05）。术后240d随访，与金属裸支架植入比较，药物洗脱支架植入能明显减少心脏不良事件发生率[12．2％与30、0％，相对危险比为0、38，95％可信限（CI）：0、12～0、96，P〈0.053，靶血管血运重建率显著降低[2.0％与25．0％，相对危险比为0．08（95％CI：0．01～0.63），P〈0．01]。术后30～240d，两组未发生晚期支架内血栓。结论与金属裸支架比较，药物洗脱支架应用于老年ST段抬高型AMI患者可能并不增加支架内血栓的中期发生率，同时可以降低患者8个月靶血管再次血运重建率。     

Drug‐eluting stents in patients with end‐stage renal disease: Meta‐analysis and systematic review of the literature

Objective : The study sought to examine the total weight of evidence regarding the use of drug eluting (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Background : The potential superiority of DES over BMS in reducing target lesion or vessel revascularization (TLR or TVR) in patients with ESRD on dialysis has not been established. Small studies comparing DES to BMS in this population have yielded inconclusive results mainly due to the small sample size. Methods : We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database of controlled clinical trials (December 2009) for controlled trials comparing DES to BMS in ESRD patients. We conducted a fixed‐effects meta‐analysis across seven eligible studies (n = 869 patients). Results : Compared with BMS‐treated patients, DES‐treated patients had significantly lower TLR/TVR (OR 0.55 CI: 0.39–0.79) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (OR 0.54; CI: 0.40–0.73). The absolute risk reduction (ARR) with DES in TLR/TVR was ?0.09 (CI: ?0.14 to ?0.04; NNT 11) and in MACE was ?0.13 (CI: ?0.19 to ?0.07; NNT 8). A trend towards lower incidence of all cause mortality was also noted with DES (OR 0.68; CI: 0.45–1.01). No significant differences were noted between both groups in the relative or absolute risk of myocardial infarction. Conclusion : The use of DES in patients with ESRD is safe and yields significant reduction in the risk of TLR/TVR and MACE. Larger randomized studies are needed to confirm the results of this meta‐analysis and establish the appropriate stent choice in this high risk population. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Outcomes of drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

IntroductionPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) has become the treatment of choice in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce restenosis compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) but there is conflicting data concerning their use in the setting of STEMI. We aimed to evaluate the influence of the type of stent on the outcomes of PPCI.MethodsThis was a single-center longitudinal study including 213 consecutive patients (76% men, mean age 60±12 years) with STEMI undergoing PPCI between 2003 and 2007, divided into two groups: BMS (43.7%) and DES (56.3%). We assessed clinical and demographic features as well as angiographic and electrocardiographic signs of myocardial reperfusion. The composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target-lesion revascularization (TLR) was evaluated.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 26 months there were no differences in the composite outcome of death/MI/TLR (BMS 18.3% vs DES 15.8%) or in the incidence of stent thrombosis. Angiographic results of the procedure were also similar. Independent predictors of the composite outcome were age (HR=1.06, 95% CI [1.02-1.11], left anterior descending artery as infarct-related vessel (HR=2.69, 95% CI [1.17-6.19]) and use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (HR=0.33, 95% CI [0.13-0.83]).ConclusionsThere was no benefit in angiographic outcomes or major cardiac events after treatment with drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents in this group of patients with STEMI.     

The short‐ and long‐term outcomes of percutaneous intervention with drug‐eluting stent vs bare‐metal stent in saphenous vein graft disease: An updated meta‐analysis of all randomized clinical trials

The use of drug‐eluting stents (DES) vs bare‐metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remains controversial. We conducted a meta‐analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing the outcomes of DES with BMS in SVG percutaneous coronary interventions. A search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed for all randomized clinical trials. We evaluated the short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes of the following: all‐cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), definite/probable stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target‐vessel revascularization (TVR). From a total of 1582 patients in 6 randomized clinical trials, 797 had DES and 785 had BMS. Patients with DES had lower short‐term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35–0.91, P = 0.02; OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.19–0.99, P = 0.05; and OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22–0.95, P = 0.04, respectively). However, there were no different outcomes for all‐cause mortality (P = 0.63) or stent thrombosis (P = 0.21). With long‐term follow‐up, there were no significant reductions of MACE (P = 0.20), TLR (P = 0.57), TVR (P = 0.07), all‐cause mortality (P = 0.29), and stent thrombosis (P = 0.76). The use of DES in SVG lesions was associated with lower short‐term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS. However, there were no significant differences with long‐term follow‐up.     

药物支架和裸支架治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者的随访研究

目的 评价药物支架和裸支架治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者疗效和预后方法217例接受了急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者纳入本研究,药物支架组92例、裸支架组125例,收集基线资料并随访6～38个月.结果 裸支架组的平均年龄(64.6±11.9)岁、Killip分级(2、3、4级)为25.9%和支架平均直径为(3.07±0.38)mm,均高于药物支架组(61.2±11.8)岁、12.2%和(2.91±0.40),差异有统计学意义(t=2.09,P=0.037;χ2=5.53,P=0.019;t=2.78,P=0.006),裸支架组平均左心室射血分数(55.4±11.9)%低于药物支架组(60.3±12.8)%,差异有统计学意义(t=-2.57,P=0.011).支架长度[(32.8±16.2)mm、(26.2±11.2)mm]、支架后扩张(45.7%、21.6%)、糖尿病(28.2%、16.0%)药物支架组高于裸支架组(t=-3.54,P=0.001;χ2=13.85,P=0.0002;χ2=4.77,P=0.030).随访期间,主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生36例,药物支架组6例(6.5%),裸支架组30例(24.0%)(χ2=11.70,P＜0.01).结论 急性ST段抬高心肌梗死急诊介入治疗是安全有效的,同裸支架相比药物支架明显降低随访期MACE发生率而改善预后.     

Drug-eluting stents in the treatment of intermediate lesions: pooled analysis from four randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: To address the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of intermediate lesions, we performed a pooled analysis of four randomized DES versus bare-metal stent (BMS) trials and assessed outcomes among patients with intermediate lesions. BACKGROUND: Before the introduction of DES, intermediate coronary lesions were commonly managed based on physiologic or anatomic assessment of lesion severity. The DES may challenge this paradigm. METHODS: The study population involved 167 of 2,478 randomized patients (6.7%) with intermediate lesions (diameter stenosis <50% [mean 44%] by quantitative coronary angiography) from the Sirolimus-coated Bx Velocity Balloon Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients with De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions (SIRIUS), TAXUS-IV, and the First and Second First Use to Underscore Restenosis Reduction with Everolimus (FUTURE-I and -II) trials. End points examined included early (in-hospital and 30-day) and late (1-year) major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, and follow-up angiographic restenosis. RESULTS: Patients with intermediate lesions randomized to DES versus BMS had low rates of 30-day MACE (1.1% vs. 4.0% respectively; p = 0.22). At one-year follow-up, patients treated with DES versus BMS had similar rates of cardiac death (0% vs. 2.7%, respectively; p = 0.11) and MI (3.4% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.49) but markedly lower rates of TVR (3.4% vs. 20.3%; p = 0.0004), MACE (5.6% vs. 25.4%; p = 0.0003), and binary angiographic restenosis (1.8% vs. 34.0%; p < 0.0001). No patient in either group developed stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMS, treatment of intermediate lesions with DES appears safe and results in a marked reduction in clinical and angiographic restenosis. The efficacy of DES may require a reevaluation of current treatment paradigms for intermediate lesions.