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

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

Long-term Outcomes of Drug-eluting versus Bare-metal stent for ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background

Long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remain uncertain.

Objective

To investigate long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Methods

We performed search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and ISI Web of Science (until February 2013) for randomized trials comparing more than 12-month efficacy or safety of DES with BMS in patients with STEMI. Pooled estimate was presented with risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model.

Results

Ten trials with 7,592 participants with STEMI were included. The overall results showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of all-cause death and definite/probable stent thrombosis between DES and BMS at long-term follow-up. Patients receiving DES implantation appeared to have a lower 1-year incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction than those receiving BMS (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.00, p= 0.05). Moreover, the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) after receiving DES was consistently lowered during long-term observation (all p< 0.01). In subgroup analysis, the use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) was associated with reduced risk of stent thrombosis in STEMI patients (RR = 0.37, p=0.02).

Conclusions

DES did not increase the risk of stent thrombosis in patients with STEMI compared with BMS. Moreover, the use of DES did lower long-term risk of repeat revascularization and might decrease the occurrence of reinfarction.     

Late outcomes of drug‐eluting versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein grafts: Propensity score analysis

Objective : To compare late outcomes with the routine use of drug‐eluting stents (DES) compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS) during percutaneous intervention (PCI) of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs). Background : Safety concerns >1 year from stent implantation have been raised about DES used for PCI of SVGs in a small randomized clinical trial. However, there are few studies comparing late outcomes of DES and BMS in routine clinical practice. Methods : Clinical outcomes (nonfatal MI, cardiac mortality) were assessed in 74 consecutive patients who received BMS and 74 consecutive propensity score matched patients that received DES for PCI of SVGs. Clinical follow‐up was censored at 2 years ± 30 days for both stent groups. Results : At 2 years, the hazard ratio for DES compared with BMS for PCI of SVGs for target vessel revascularization was 0.54 (0.21–1.36), nonfatal MI or cardiac death was 0.68 (0.27–1.68), cardiac mortality 1.19 (0.32–4.45), and stent thrombosis 0.49 (0.09–2.66). Similar outcomes were observed stratified by propensity score quintile. Conclusions : The routine clinical use of DES for PCI of SVGs was associated with a safety profile that was similar to that of bare metal stents with a clear trend toward a less frequent need for reinterventions. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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)     

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.     

Outcomes of diabetics receiving bare‐metal stents versus drug‐eluting stents

Objectives : We sought to determine if differences existed in in‐hospital outcomes, long‐term rates of target vessel revascularization (TVR), and/or long‐term mortality trends between patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either a drug‐eluting stent(s) (DES) or a bare metal stent(s) (BMS). Background : Short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing PCI with DES versus BMS remain inconsistent between randomized‐controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods : Data were collected prospectively on diabetics undergoing PCI with either DES or BMS from January 2000 to June 2008. Demographic information, medical histories, in‐hospital outcomes, and long‐term TVR and mortality trends were obtained for all patients. Results : A total of 1,319 patients were included in the study. Diabetics receiving DES had a significant reduction in index admission MACE compared to diabetics receiving BMS. Using multivariable adjustment, after a mean follow‐up of 2.5 years (maximum 5 years), diabetics who received DES had a 38% decreased risk of TVR compared to diabetics with BMS [HR 0.62 (95% CI: 0.43–0.90)]; diabetics with DES had an insignificant adjusted improvement in long‐term survival compared to diabetics with BMS [HR 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52–1.00)]. These long‐term survival and TVR rates were confirmed using propensity scoring. Conclusions : The use of DES when compared with BMS among diabetics undergoing PCI is associated with significant improvement in long‐term TVR, with an insignificant similar trend in all‐cause mortality. The long‐term results of this observational study are consistent with prior RCTs after adjusting for confounding variables. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Long-term clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in Chinese geriatric patients

Background & Objective Little is known about the relative efficacies of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in elderly patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome for geriatric patients who received either DES or BMS. Methods From January 2002 to October 2005, 199 consecutive Chinese geriatric patients (≥ 75 years old) underwent PCI with coronary DES or BMS implantation at our institution. We analyzed the major clinical end points that included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, and bleeding complications. Results The three-year cumulative rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction were significantly lower in the DES group (6.3%, 3.6%, 5.4%) compared with the BMS group (16.2%, 11.5%, 14.9%; P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the three-year cumulative rate for target lesion revascularization (6.3% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.61) or stent thrombosis (3.6% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.70). Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences in the cumulative rate for intracranial hemorrhage, or major and minor hemorrhage at three years. Conclusions DES-based PCI was associated with a significant reduction in the three-year cumulative rate of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction compared with BMS, without increased risk of TLR, stent thrombosis, or bleeding complications at three years in this group of Chinese geriatric patients.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction Lesson from a case-controlled comparison of bare metal versus drug-eluting stents in thrombus-laden lesions

BACKGROUND: Given the encouraging results on early restenosis rate with drug-eluting coronary stents, both safety and 6 months outcomes of PCI with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in acute myocardial infarction are scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction were subjected to acute PCI with SES and compared to 50 matched control patients who received a bare metal stent (BMS). All patients were followed over 6 months; in addition repeat angiography was obtained in 88.0% of SES and 92.0% of BMS patients. As a result of matching both groups were similar with regard to demographic, clinical, and infarction characteristics, as well as procedural data and adjunctive medication. SES diameter was 3.0 +/- 0.1 versus 3.3 +/- 0.5 mm with BMS, while the length of stented segment was 24 +/- 11 mm with SES versus 16 +/- 8 mm with BMS (p<0.05). No subacute stent thrombosis occurred in either group. At 6 months, all-cause mortality was 2.0% with SES, and 4.0% with BMS (n. s.); reinfarction rate was 2.0% in both groups, but binary restenosis rate (4.0 versus 18.0%; p<0.05) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were improved with SES (2.0 versus 16.0%; p<0.05) resulting in lower MACE rate of 6.0 versus 22.0% with BMS (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Placement of SES with PCI for myocardial infarction is feasible and as safe as BMS; 6-month outcome is superior with SES due to the lower rate of both angiographic restenosis and TVR.     

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)     

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。     

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.     

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。     

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

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

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.     

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.     

Comparison of safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) are superior to bare metal stents (BMSs) for percutaneous coronary intervention, but data regarding SESs in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are limited. We investigated the clinical outcomes of patients with STEMI who were treated with SESs. We measured clinical characteristics and acute and long-term outcomes in 306 consecutive patients with STEMI who received a SES (n = 156) or a BMS (n = 150). Patients were followed for death, nonfatal reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization. Patients with SESs had a 0.6% in-hospital mortality rate versus 5.3% in patients with BMSs (p = 0.015). Six-month mortality rates were 1.9% (SES) and 10.1% (BMS, p = 0.003). At 6 months, patients with SESs were less likely to have target vessel revascularization (1.3% vs 8.1%, p = 0.005) and achieve the composite end point (3.2% vs 16.1%, p = 0.0001). No subacute thrombosis or clinical restenosis occurred in the SES group. Patients who received BMSs were older, received more stents, and had more myocardial damage, worse renal function, and lower ejection fractions than did those in the SES group. By multivariate discriminant analysis, stent type (SES vs BMS) was the most significant determinant of the 6-month composite end point (p = 0.01) and the need for target vessel revascularization (p = 0.02). In conclusion, SESs are safe and effective in STEMI at 6 months.     

Percutaneous intervention on the saphenous vein bypass grafts—Long‐term outcomes

Background/Objective : In this era of drug eluting stents (DES), the long‐term outcome of percutaneous intervention (PCI) on saphenous venous grafts (SVG) is unknown. The objective of the study was to compare the long‐term outcomes of DES versus bare metal stent (BMS) in this population and to determine the predictors of outcomes. Methods : We reviewed the medical records of all patients who had PCI performed during January 2003 to February 2005 to obtain data cardiac risk factors, medications at discharge, angiographic details and outcomes. Results : One hundred and nine patient had PCI to SVG; of these, 37 patients received DES and the remaining had BMS. Over a mean follow‐up of 33 months, the PCI using DES was associated with 30% restenosis, 35% target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate of 46% versus 35% restenosis, 38% TVR and 50% MACE rate with BMS. There was no significant difference in long‐term outcome with DES as compared to BMS. Conclusion : There was no difference in the long‐term outcomes of PCI on SVG irrespective of the type of stent used. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.