Comparison of simple and complex stenting techniques in the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation stenosis

We assessed the safety and feasibility of various stenting techniques using the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) bifurcation stenoses. One hundred sixteen patients with unprotected LMCA bifurcation stenoses underwent SES implantation. A simple stenting technique (simple group, n = 67) across the left circumflex artery (LCx) and a complex technique (complex group) comprising "kissing" stenting (n = 24) or a "crush" (n = 25) technique were used. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar for the 2 groups, except for more multivessel involvement and narrower LCxs in the complex group. The procedural success rate was 100%. Angiographic restenosis rate at 6 months was lower in the simple group (5.3%) than in the complex group (24.4%, p = 0.024). In the complex group, restenosis rates were similar for the kissing (25.0%) and crush (23.8%) techniques (p = 1.0). There were no incidents of death or myocardial infarction during follow-up (median 18.6 months). Target lesion revascularization was performed in 6 patients only in the complex group (0% vs 12.2%, p = 0.005). At 18 months, survival rates without target lesion revascularization were 100 +/- 0% in the simple group and 85.7 +/- 5.6% in the complex group (p = 0.004). In conclusion, SES implantation for unprotected LMCA bifurcation stenoses appears to be safe and effective. Compared with the complex stenting technique, the simple technique was technically easier and appeared to be more effective in improving long-term outcomes in patients with normal LCxs.     

Effect of Paclitaxel-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents on coronary restenosis in Korean diabetic patients

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), the angiographic rates of restenosis have reduced dramatically but less prominently in diabetic patients. We compared the effects of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) on 6-month angiographic and clinical outcomes in Korean diabetic patients. METHOD: Diabetic patients with de novo coronary lesions (169 patients with 190 lesions) were randomly assigned to either SES or PES in six different cardiovascular centers from April 2005 to January 2006. Patients with vessel size >2.0 mm and < or =2 vessel diseases requiring < or =2 DES implantation were included in the study. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. At 6-month follow-up, the late lumen loss (0.26 +/- 0.76 in the SES group vs. 0.39 +/- 0.92 mm in the PES group, P = 0.356) and the rate of binary restenosis (2.8%[n = 2] in the SES group vs. 6.9%[n = 5] in the PES group, P = 0.441) showed no significant differences. Rates of death (1.2%[n = 1] in the SES group vs. 1.2%[n = 1] in the PES group, P = 1.000), myocardial infarction (1.2%[n = 1] in the SES group vs. 1.2%[n = 1] in the PES group, P = 1.000), and target lesion revascularization (2.4%[n = 2] in the SES group vs. 4.8%[n = 4] in the PES group, P = 0.443) were similar in both groups during 6 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The use of either SES or PES demonstrated similar 6-month angiographic and clinical outcomes in Korean diabetic patients with coronary artery disease.     

Comparison of the effectiveness of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for small coronary artery lesions.

BACKGROUND: The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) reduce restenosis in small coronary artery lesions. However, it is not clear which of these stents is superior in terms of clinical outcomes. METHODS: The authors retrospectively examined 197 patients with 245 de novo small coronary artery lesions (相似文献   

Ten-year outcomes of early generation sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with left main coronary artery disease

To compare 10-year outcomes after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. Very long-term outcome data of patients with LMCA disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) have not been well described. In 10-year extended follow-up of the MAINCOMPARE registry, we evaluated 778 patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis who were treated with SES (n = 607) or PES (n = 171) between January 2000 and June 2006. The primary composite outcome (a composite of death, myocardial infarction [MI] or target-vessel revascularization [TVR]) was compared with an inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting (IPTW) adjustment. Clinical events have linearly accumulated over 10 years. At 10 years, there were no significant differences between SES and PES in the observed rates of the primary composite outcome (42.0% vs. 47.4%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–1.10), and definite stent thrombosis (ST) (1.9% vs. 1.8%; HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.28–3.64). In the IPTW-adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences between SES and PES in the risks for the primary composite outcome (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65–1.14) or definite ST (adjusted HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29–3.90). In patients who underwent DES implantation, high overall adverse clinical event rates (with a linearly increasing event rate over time) were observed during extended follow-up. At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with SES vs. PES for LMCA disease. The incidence of stent thrombosis was quite low and comparable between the groups.     

Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: comparison with bare metal stent implantation

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and bare metal stent (BMS) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of SES implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis have not been ascertained. METHODS: Elective SES implantation for de novo unprotected LMCA stenosis was performed in 102 consecutive patients with preserved left ventricular function from March 2003 to March 2004. Data from this group were compared to those from 121 patients treated with BMS during the preceding two years. RESULTS: Compared to the BMS group, the SES group received more direct stenting, had fewer debulking atherectomies, had a greater number of stents, had more segments stented, and underwent more bifurcation stenting. The procedural success rate was 100% for both groups. There were no incidents of death, stent thrombosis, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), or emergent bypass surgery during hospitalization in either group. Despite less acute gain (2.06 +/- 0.56 mm vs. 2.73 +/- 0.73 mm, p < 0.001) in the SES group, SES patients showed a lower late lumen loss (0.05 +/- 0.57 mm vs. 1.27 +/- 0.90 mm, p < 0.001) and a lower six-month angiographic restenosis rate (7.0% vs. 30.3%, p < 0.001) versus the BMS group. At 12 months, the rate of freedom from death, MI, and target lesion revascularization was 98.0 +/- 1.4% in the SES group and 81.4 +/- 3.7% in the BMS group (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis appears safe with regard to acute and midterm complications and is more effective in preventing restenosis compared to BMS implantation.     

Sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in comparison with balloon angioplasty for treatment of in-stent restenosis.

This study evaluated the acute and follow-up effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and nonpolymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in comparison will balloon angioplasty for treatment of complex in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions. Drug-eluting stents have been demonstrated to be highly effective for treatment of de novo lesions. The use of drug-eluting stents for treatment of complex ISR is less well defined. Eighty one lesions with in-stent restenosis (lesion length < 30 mm in a native coronary artery) were treated with either PTCA alone (n = 26 lesions in 25 patients), PES (n = 27 lesions in 24 patients; Achieve, Cook; 3,1 mug paclitaxel/mm(2) nonpolymer-based coating), SES (n = 28 lesions in 28 patients; Cypher, Cordis; 140 mug sirolimus/cm(2) metal surface area). Nine-month MACE rates were 32%, 8%, and 14% (all due to repeated revascularization procedures, except one death in the SES group) in the PTCA, PES, and SES group, respectively. Postintervention minimal lumen diameter in stent was significantly greater in the SES and the PES group in comparison with the PTCA group (2.37 +/- 0.26, 2.54 +/- 0.42, 1.78 +/- 0.23 mm; P < 0.001). At 6-month angiographic follow-up, late loss in stent was 0.77 +/- 0.45, 0.43 +/- 0.53, and 0.29 +/- 0.52 mm for the PTCA, PES, and SES group, respectively (P = 0.005). In-lesion restenosis rate was 61% for the PTCA group, 20% for the PES group, and 13% for the SES group (P = 0.042). The implantation of SES as well as nonpolymer PES proved to be effective for treatment of ISR. The combination of improved acute gain and reduced late loss results in a significantly improved angiographic follow-up result in comparison with PTCA.     

Clinical and angiographic outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in aorto-ostial lesions.

OBJECTIVES: This observational study evaluated the clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients with aorto-ostial coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) or with bare metal stents (BMSs). BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of SESs for the treatment of aorto-ostial lesions have not been demonstrated. METHODS: We identified 82 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions in 82 aorto-ostial lesions using the SES (32 patients) or BMS (50 patients) and compared the two groups of patients. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death or Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were recorded in-hospital and at a 10-month follow-up. RESULTS: All stents were implanted successfully. There were no statistically significant differences regarding major in-hospital complications between the two groups. At 10-month follow-up, two (6.3%) patients in the SES group and 14 (28%) patients in the BMS group underwent TLR (p = 0.01); MACE were less frequent in the SES group compared to the BMS group (19% vs. 44%, p = 0.02). Angiographic follow-up showed lower binary restenosis rates (11% vs. 51%, p = 0.001) and smaller late loss (0.21 +/- 0.31 mm vs. 2.06 +/- 1.37 mm, p < 0.0001) in the SES group. CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of our study is that, compared to the BMS, implantation of the SES in aorto-ostial lesions appears safe and effective, with no increase in major in-hospital complications and a significant improvement in restenosis and late event rates at 10-month follow-up.     

Cost analysis from two randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to analyze the cost of percutaneous coronary interventions with use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients at high risk of restenosis. BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown different clinical efficacy with these drug-eluting stents. Whether this difference extends on cost estimates between the 2 stents is not known. METHODS: We included 450 patients with diabetes mellitus and in-stent restenosis from 2 randomized studies comparing SES with PES. Assigned costs for the economic evaluation were the initial hospitalization and all subsequent cardiac-related inpatient/outpatient health resources during 9 to 12 months of clinical follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from the health insurance system's perspective. RESULTS: There were no differences between the 2 study groups regarding mortality (p = 0.78) and myocardial infarction rates (p = 0.76). Target lesion revascularization was performed in 16 patients (7.1%) in the SES group and in 34 patients (15.1%) in the PES group (p = 0.01). Initial hospital costs were not significantly different between the 2 stents (p = 0.53). The follow-up costs were, however, different: 2,684 +/- 2,072 euros per patient treated with SES and 4,527 +/- 6,466 euros per patient treated with PES (p < 0.001). Total costs also differed at the end of the follow-up: 8,924 +/- 3,077 euros per patient treated with SES and 10,903 +/- 7,205 euros per patient treated with PES (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients at high risk of restenosis, use of SES is associated with lower costs compared with PES. The cost savings are mainly due to the reduced need of repeat revascularization procedures with SES.     

Comparative clinical outcomes of paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents: results from a large prospective multicenter registry--STENT Group.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the 9-month clinical outcomes of patients treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for coronary artery stenosis. BACKGROUND: The STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) registry is the first multicenter registry in the U.S. to collect long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents from "real-world" practice. METHODS: Data on all percutaneous coronary interventions in 8 U.S. hospital centers were collected in the STENT registry between 2003 and 2005. In this prospective, nonrandomized, observational study, the choice of procedures was at the physicians' discretion. Patients who only received a PES (n = 4,671) or SES (n = 4,555) and completed 9-month follow-up (93.8% of eligible) were included for analysis. Primary end points were death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 9 months. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (any of the 3 primary end points) and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: At 9 months, death, MI, and TVR occurred in 2.2%, 2.0%, and 4.1%, respectively, of the PES group and 2.5%, 2.2%, and 4.3%, respectively, of the SES group (p = NS); MACE occurred in 7.5% of the PES group and 8.0% of the SES group (p = 0.37). After adjustments for group differences in baseline characteristics, TVR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 1.32; p = 0.26) and MACE (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; p = 0.56) were similar for PES and SES. Stent thrombosis at 9 months occurred in 0.7% of both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that clinical restenosis and MACE events after PES and SES procedures in "real-world" patients are infrequent and similar at 9 months.     

Sirolimus- vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: Complete 2-year follow-up of a two-center registry

Background

The feasibility of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents and its comparability with bypass surgery in treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis has been shown previously. We compared the mid-to long-term outcome between sirolimus-(SES) vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in an all-comer analysis that included all patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis who underwent PCI with SES or PES.

Methods

From March 2003 and June 2007, 196 patients underwent PCI with SES or PES for unprotected LMCA stenosis at Seoul National University Main or Bundang Hospital; SES was implanted in 141 patients and PES in 55 patients. The baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were mostly similar between the SES and PES group.

Results

After 2 years of follow-up, there were no differences in the rate of cardiac death (9.1% vs. 8.5%) and nonfatal MI (5.5% vs. 2.8%) between the two groups. However, the risk of repeat revascularization tended to be lower in the SES group compared with the PES group [TLR, 9.9% vs. 20.0% (P = 0.06); TVR, 17.7% vs. 30.9% (P = 0.05)], which did not reach statistical significance. The rate of stent thrombosis (ST) was also similar between the two groups (3.6% vs. 2.1% for definite ST, 3.6% vs. 2.8% for definite + probable ST).

Conclusions

In all-comers undergoing first generation DES implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis, PES and SES showed comparable 2-year clinical results regarding hard endpoints and major adverse cardiac events.     

Serial angiographic follow-up of sirolimus-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to evaluate the clinical and serial angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. BACKGROUND: The efficacy of SES has led to their expanded use for off-label indications, including LMCA disease. METHODS: Unprotected LMCA intervention with SES was attempted in 50 patients. Surveillance angiography was performed at three and nine months' follow-up. RESULTS: The target lesion involved the distal LMCA in 47 patients (94%). In-lesion restenosis occurred in 21 patients (42%), was focal in 85% of cases, and in 82% involved the branch ostia, sparing the LMCA itself. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) occurred in 19 patients (38%) over a mean follow-up of 276 +/- 57 days; TLR was ischemia-driven in 7 patients (14%). Late loss was significantly greater within the left circumflex (LCX) ostium compared to the parent vessel (PV) of the LMCA bifurcation (0.83 +/- 0.89 mm vs. 0.49 +/- 0.72 mm, p = 0.04). Late loss continued to increase between three- and nine-month follow-up. Final minimal luminal diameter and maximal balloon pressure were independent predictors of restenosis of the PV. CONCLUSIONS: Restenosis is a frequent finding when serial angiographic follow-up is performed after SES implantation for unprotected distal LMCA lesions. Restenosis is usually focal, most often involves the LCX ostium, and often occurs without symptoms.     

One-year clinical outcome after coronary stenting of very small vessels using 2.25 mm sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents: a comparison between the RESEARCH and T-SEARCH registries

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) remains unknown. We evaluated the clinical outcomes after implantation of 2.25 mm diameter SES and PES. METHODS AND RESULTS: PES have been used as the stent of choice for all percutaneous coronary interventions as part of the prospective Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) Registry. Ninety consecutive patients received at least one 2.25 mm PES (PES group), and were compared with 107 patients who received at least one 2.25 mm SES as part of the RESEARCH registry. The overall population presented high-risk characteristics commonly excluded from most studies. Populations were well-matched. There were 2 (2.2%) incidents of subacute stent thrombosis in the PES group (in a 2.25 mm stent), and none in the SES group. At one year, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 5.6% in the SES group, and 17.8% in the PES group (p = 0.007). After adjustments for other significant univariate variables, presentation with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (adjusted OR 5.2 [95% CI 1.8-15.0], p = 0.002) and PES utilization (adjusted OR 3.7 [95% CI 1.3-10.5], p = 0.013) were found to be significant independent predictors of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected population treated for very small vessel disease, SES were associated with better 12-month clinical outcomes and the use of PES was identified as an independent predictor of adverse events.     

Polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents are superior to nonpolymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions

Although polymer coating of coronary stents enables sufficient loading and release of incorporated drugs, it has also been associated with potentially negative effects. This study compared the clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) outcomes of patients treated with polymer- versus nonpolymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs). Sixty-five consecutive patients (70 de novo lesions) treated with polymer-based PESs (TAXUS, 1 microg/mm2 of paclitaxel; Boston Scientific Corp.) and 65 consecutive patients (65 de novo lesions) treated with nonpolymer-based PESs (V-Flex Plus, 2.7 microg/mm2 of paclitaxel; Cook, Inc.) were enrolled in the study. Six-month angiographic follow-up was performed on 54 lesions of the polymer-based PES group and 51 lesions of the nonpolymer-based PES group. IVUS at angiographic follow-up was performed in 61 of the first 70 included lesions. At 6-month IVUS follow-up, mean intimal hyperplasia cross-sectional area was 2.36 +/- 1.60 mm2 in the nonpolymer-based PES group versus 0.62 +/- 0.41 mm2 in the polymer-based PES group (p = 0.003). Implantation of polymer-based PESs resulted in significantly lower in-stent late lumen loss (0.22 +/- 0.27 vs 0.74 +/- 0.61 mm, respectively, p <0.001). In-stent binary restenosis rate was 5% versus 20%, respectively (p <0.001). Target lesion revascularization rate was 9% after implantation of polymer-based PES versus 18% (p = 0.128) after implantation of nonpolymer-based PES, and the major adverse cardiac event rate was 9% versus 23%, respectively (p = 0.032). In conclusion, polymer-based PESs result in superior angiographic and IVUS follow-up findings compared with nonpolymer-based PESs.     

Impact of sirolimus-eluting and Paclitaxel-eluting stents on outcome in patients with diabetes mellitus and stenting in more than one coronary artery

Randomized trials have shown that implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) compared with bare metal stents. We compared the impact of SESs and PESs on clinical outcome in medically treated diabetic patients with multivessel stents. In this study, the in-hospital and 9-month clinical outcomes of 260 consecutive diabetic patients who underwent implantation of SESs (147 patients) or PESs (113 patients) were compared. MACEs were defined as death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. The baseline demographic and angiographic characteristics were well matched. An average of 3.0 +/- 1.3 versus 2.8 +/- 1.2 lesions were treated in the SES and PES groups, respectively (p = 0.34), with a mean stented length per patient of 73 +/- 43 versus 61 +/- 36 mm (p = 0.08). No significant difference was observed between the SES and PES groups for in-hospital (6.1% vs 3.5%, p = 0.34) or 9-month MACE (24.5% vs 19.5%, p = 0.34) rates or for subacute (1.4% vs 0.9%, p = 0.72) or late (0.7% vs 0.9%, p = 0.85) stent thrombosis. Insulin-requiring diabetic patients treated with SESs and PESs also had similar demographic and angiographic characteristics and rates of in-hospital (4.7% vs 7.7%, p = 0.57) and 9-month (28.0% vs 38.4%, p = 0.44) MACEs. Insulin-dependent diabetes was the only independent predictor of MACEs (odds ratio 2.68, 95% confidence interval 1.46 to 4.89, p = 0.001). In conclusion, our results demonstrated a relatively high incidence of MACEs in a diabetic population with multivessel disease, despite treatment with drug-eluting stents. In addition, we could not find any clear advantage of 1 type of stent versus the other.     

Efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents for saphenous vein graft intervention

BACKGROUND: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is associated with a significantly increased rate of periprocedural complications and late clinical and angiographic restenosis. In the contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) era, the comparison of the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in SVG interventions is currently unknown. We conducted this retrospective analysis to investigate this issue. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-seven patients with 50 SVG lesions who underwent standard percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with SES (SES group) were compared with 42 patients with 45 SVG lesions with PES (PES group). All patients received distal protection devices (DPDs) during the interventions. The in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month clinical outcomes in both groups were compared. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced between both groups except for the proximal and mid lesions. There were no deaths or Q-wave myocardial infarctions (MIs) during the index hospitalization. Non-Q-wave MI was similar between the two groups (SES vs PES, 4.3% vs 7.1%, P=0.55). At 30-day and 6-month follow-ups, all the clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. There was no subacute thrombosis (SAT) or late thrombosis in either group. The event-free survival at 6 months was also similar between both groups (P=0.75). CONCLUSIONS: The use of DES in patients undergoing SVG intervention with a DPD is clinically safe and feasible. As compared to SES, PES have the same efficacy and clinical outcomes in SVG interventions up to 6 months.     

Comparison of three-year clinical outcome of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the RESEARCH and T-SEARCH Registries)

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) recently proved to be superior to bare metal stents (BMSs) in decreasing the need for repeat revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at 1 year. Whether this also holds for paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) is currently unclear and the long-term relatively efficacy of the 2 drug-eluting stents is currently unknown. We investigated the 3-year efficacy of SESs and PESs versus BMSs in patients with STEMI. Primary angioplasty was performed in a consecutive group of 505 patients (BMSs in 183, SESs in 186, PESs in 136). At 3 years, the cumulative mortality rate was comparable in the 3 groups: 13.3% in the BMS group, 11.5% in the SES group, and 12.4% in the PES group (nonsignificant for all). The rate of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 12.0% in the BMS group compared with 8.0% and 7.7% in the SES and PES groups, respectively (p = 0.12 for BMS vs SES, 0.30 for BMS vs PES, 0.62 for SES vs PES). The cumulative incidence of death, MI, or TVR was 25.5% in the BMS group compared with 17.9% and 20.6% in the SES and PES groups, respectively (p = 0.06 for BMS vs SES, 0.32 for BMS vs PES, 0.45 for SES vs PES). Angiographic stent thrombosis occurred in 2.4% of all patients (BMS 1.6%, SES 2.7%, PES 2.9%). In conclusion, in this relatively small consecutive patient cohort, the use of SESs and PESs was no longer associated with significantly lower rates of TVR and major adverse cardiace events in patients with STEMI after 3 years of follow-up. A high frequency of stent thrombosis was observed in the 2 drug-eluting stent groups.     

Impact of three or more sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent stenting with > or =3 sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) when compared with those treated with > or =3 paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for single coronary lesions is proven to be effective and durable. METHODS: A total of 126 patients who received DES were identified, of which 66 patients received > or =3 SES (SES group) and 60 patients received > or =3 PES (PES group). RESULTS: The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were compatible between the two study groups. During the index hospitalization, all clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. There were no deaths or Q-wave myocardial infarctions (MIs) in either group. At 30 days' and 6 months' follow-up, all clinical outcomes, including death, Q-wave MI, non-Q-wave MI, target lesion revascularization, target vascular revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events, were compatible between both groups. There were 2 patients (3.0%) with subacute thrombosis in the SES group and 1 patient (1.7%) in the PES group, but there was no statistical significance. There was no late thrombosis from either group. In addition, patients in the SES group had similar event-free survival rates as compared with those in the PES group (P = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who require > or =3 DES implantations experienced increased adverse clinical events as compared with historical single stent implantation. However, there were no differences in safety and efficacy among the patients treated with SES as compared with those treated with PES.     

"Head-to-head comparison between sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with complex coronary artery disease: an intravascular ultrasound study".

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess neointimal hyperplasia following sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) implantation in a patients with complex coronary disease. METHOD: Between January to December 2004, 70 patients were enrolled in this study (SES = 37; PES = 33. The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of SES and PES on neointimal proliferation inhibition in patients with complex coronary lesions by volumetric 3D intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) assessment at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: Baseline clinical, demographic or angiographic characteristics were well balanced in both groups. All procedures as well as hospitalisation were uneventful. The percentage of B2/C lesions in our study was > 90% in both groups. The IVUS-assessed in-stent mean neointimal hyperplasia volume was significantly lower in lesions treated with SES compared to PES (4.1 +/- 11 mm3 vs. 17.4 +/- 23 mm3, p < 0.002) at 6 month follow-up. No difference in both MACE (3.0 versus 6.0%, p = NS) and restenosis (5.4 versus 9.1%, p = NS) were found. The in-segment late loss at six month was 0.26 mm in the SES and 0.48 mm in the PES group (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed reduced neointimal proliferation after sirolimuseluting as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with complex coronary artery disease. Both SES and PES were associated with low rate of angiographic restenosis or major adverse cardiovascular events.     

Technical feasibility,safety, and clinical outcome of stenting of unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation narrowing

This study was performed to evaluate the acute and long-term results of stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) bifurcation lesions. Sixty-three consecutive patients with an unprotected LMCA bifurcation lesion and normal left ventricular function were included. Stenting was performed with (n = 32) or without debulking atherectomy (n = 31) at the operator's discretion. Slotted-tube stents, coil stents, or bifurcation stents were used. The procedural success rate was 100%. In-hospital events including stent thrombosis, Q-wave myocardial infarction, and emergency bypass surgery did not occur in any patients. The angiographic follow-up rate was 86% (43 of the 50 eligible patients), and the restenosis rate was 28% (parent vessel only 14%, side branch only 9%, and both 5%). Restenosis at the parent vessel occurred less frequently in the debulking group than in the nondebulking group (5% vs 33%, respectively, p = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, the debulking procedure was an independent predictive factor of restenosis for the parent vessel (odds ratio 0.10, 95% confidence intervals 0.01 to 0.91, p = 0.04). Clinical follow-up was obtained in all patients at 19.9 +/- 13.7 months. There were 2 deaths (noncardiac origin), but no myocardial infarction during follow-up. Target lesion revascularization was required in 6 patients. The event-free survival rate (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization) was 86% at the end of the follow-up period. In conclusion, stenting for an unprotected LMCA bifurcation lesion may be performed with a high procedural success rate and a favorable clinical outcome in selected patients with normal left ventricular function, suggesting that stenting would be an effective alternative to surgery in these patients.     

Long-term clinical outcomes and thrombosis rates of sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in an unselected population with coronary artery disease (REWARDS registry)

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) significantly decrease the need for repeat interventions compared with bare metal stents. Comparative outcome data from randomized, controlled, head-to-head trials using these systems in a selected group of patients and lesions are conflicting; therefore, we compared clinical outcomes of unselected patients who underwent contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention with SES or PES implantation. In the REWARDS registry, 1-year clinical outcomes of 1,925 patients who received SESs were compared with 844 patients who received PESs. Outcomes at 30 days and 6 months were similar between groups, with a trend toward higher rates of stent thrombosis in the SES group compared with the PES group. Stent thrombosis rate at 12 months was significantly higher in the SES than in the PES group, with cumulative stent thrombosis rates of 1.9% in the SES group and 0.8% in the PES group (p = 0.034). However, overall rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were similar in the 2 groups at 12 months. After adjusting for significant multivariate predictors of MACEs, the hazard ratio at 1 year was 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.33, p = 0.607) and the major predictors for MACEs were a history of renal failure, diabetes, previous myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, class III or IV heart failure, type C lesions, and saphenous vein grafts. In conclusion, use of SESs and PESs in unrestricted, contemporary practice had comparable outcomes in terms of low rates of revascularization and clinical events. Stent thrombosis continues to be a major concern for SESs and PESs.