Platelet recruitment to venous stent thrombi

Thrombosis following venous stent placement is a morbid clinical outcome. Whether to target platelets or coagulation factors for venous stent thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. We sought to determine whether integrin α_IIbβ₃ antagonism with lamifiban would inhibit platelet recruitment to venous stent thrombosis. Anti-thrombotic efficacy was compared between venous and arterial circulations. Pigs received either lamifiban (0.2 mg/kg bolus plus 0.2 mg/kg/h infusion; n = 6) or saline (n = 12). Carotid arteries were crush injured and then harvested 30 min later to provide an assessment of antithrombotic efficacy in the arterial circulation. Iliac venous stents were then deployed and thrombi allowed to propagate for 2 h before harvesting. Platelet deposition was measured by scintillation detection of autologous ¹¹¹In-platelets. Venous thrombi were quantified by weight and compared to platelet, Von Willebrand factor (VWF) and fibrinogen content. Arterial platelet deposition (×10⁶/cm²) was reduced >80 % by lamifiban (398 ± 437) compared to controls (1,540 ± 883; p < 0.005). Lamifiban also reduced venous thrombus platelet deposition (139 ± 88 vs. 281 ± 167) however did not prevent thrombosis. In control animals, venous stent platelet deposition correlated with plasma fibrinogen content (R² = 0.29; p = 0.03). Fibrinogen content correlated directly with venous stent platelet deposition (p = 0.03) but not thrombus weight. Neither venous platelet deposition nor thrombus weights varied by VWF content. Platelet recruitment to venous stent thrombi occurs in part through the integrin α_IIbβ₃ receptor. Unlike arterial thrombosis, inhibition of this receptor is insufficient to prevent venous stent thrombosis.     

Low-dose sirolimus-eluting hydroxyapatite coating on stents does not increase platelet activation and adhesion ex vivo

We previously found paclitaxel-eluting polymer-coated stents causing more human platelet-monocyte complex formation than bare metal stents in vitro. Presently, we examined patterns of platelet activation and adhesion after exposure to 6 nanofilm HAp-coated (HAp-nano) stents, 6 HAp-microporous-coated (HAp-micro) stents, 5 HAp sirolimus-eluting microporous-coated (HAp-SES) stents and 5 cobalt-chromium stents (BMS) deployed in an in vitro flow system. Blood obtained from healthy volunteers was circulated and sampled at 0, 10, 30 and 60 min. By flow cytometry, there were no significant differences in P-Selectin expression between the 4 stent types (HAp-nano = 32.5%; HAp-micro = 42.5%, HAp-SES = 10.23%, BMS = 7% change from baseline at 60 min, p = NS); PAC-1 antibody binding (HAp-nano = 11.8%; HAp-micro = 2.9%, HAp-SES = 18%, BMS = 6.4% change from baseline at 60 min, p = NS) or PMC formation (HAp-nano = 21.6%; HAp-micro = 4%, HAp-SES = 6.6%, BMS = 17.4% change from baseline at 60 min, p = NS). The 4 stent types did not differ in the average number of platelet clusters >10 μm in diameter by SEM (HAp-nano = 2.39 ± 5.75; HAp-micro = 2.26 ± 3.43; HAp-SES = 1.93 ± 3.24; BMS = 1.94 ± 2.41, p = NS). The majority of the struts in each stent group were only mildly covered by platelets, (HAp-nano = 80%, HAp-micro = 61%, HAp-SES = 78% and BMS = 52.1%, p = NS). The HAp-microporous-coated stents (ECD) attracted slightly more proteinaceous material than bare metal stents (HAp-micro = 35% struts with complete protein coverage, P < 0.0001 vs. other 3 stent types). In conclusion, biomimetic stent coating with nanofilm or microporous hydroxyapatite, even when eluting low-dose sirolimus, does not increase the platelet activation in circulating human blood, or platelet adhesion to stent surface when compared to bare metal stents in vitro.     

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。     

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 renal insufficiency on safety and efficacy of drug‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents at 6 years

Background : There is few information on the long‐term efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in all‐comer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)—patients complicated by renal insufficiency (RI). Objective : Our aim was to assess the 6‐year clinical outcome of PCI‐patients with RI treated exclusively with BMS, SES, or PES in our academic hospital. Methods: A total of 1382 patients, included in three cohorts of consecutive PCI‐patients (BMS = 392; SES = 498; PES = 492), were categorized by creatinine clearance calculated by the Cockroft–Gault formula (normal kidney function ≥ 90; mild RI = 60–89; moderate RI < 60) and systematically followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : Mortality rates were significantly higher for patients with moderate RI compared to mild RI and normal kidney function at 6 years (Kaplan–Meier estimate: moderate RI (34%) vs. mild RI (12%), P < 0.001; moderate RI (34%) vs. normal kidney function (8%), P < 0.001). After multivariate Cox‐regression analysis, SES and PES decreased the occurrence of target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) and MACE at 6 years in patients with a normal creatinine clearance compared to BMS [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28–0.84; aHR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.97, respectively] with no significant effect on mortality. Safety‐ and efficacy end points were comparable for the three stent types in patients with mild‐ and moderate renal function. Conclusion : Patients with a normal creatinine clearance had significant improvement in TVR and MACE rates after SES‐ or PES implantation compared to BMS at 6 years. However, there was no superiority of both drug‐eluting stents over BMS in safety and efficacy end points for patients with impaired renal function. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Local drug delivery of Argatroban from a polymeric-metallic composite stent reduces platelet deposition in a swine coronary model

Thrombus formation after intracoronary stent implantation provides a stimulus for neointimal hyperplasia and if excessive can result in stent thrombosis. We tested the hypothesis that local delivery of an antithrombin drug from a polymeric-metallic stent inhibits platelet thrombus formation. An uncoated metal slotted tube, a jellyroll slotted metal stent with an Argatroban-loaded polymeric sleeve, and a jellyroll slotted metal stent with a drug-leached polymeric sleeve were randomly deployed into the coronary arteries of eight juvenile farm swine. Platelet deposition in the stented segments was determined at 2 hr using autologous ¹¹¹Indium oxime-labeled platelets. Platelet deposition was significantly less in the Argatroban-loaded stents compared to the Argatroban-leached stents (1.40 × 10⁸ platelets/cm² vs. 26.8 × 10⁸ platelets/cm²; P = 0.005). When corrected for differences in the metal surface area exposed to blood, platelet deposition was significantly lower in the Argatroban-loaded stent (1.74 ± 1.95 × 10⁸/cm²) compared to the Argatroban-leached stent (33.5 ± 39.1 × 10⁸/cm²; P = 0.005) and the uncoated metal stent (36.2 ± 73.3 × 10⁸/cm²; P = 0.006). In this coronary stent thrombosis model Argatroban has local antithrombotic properties when delivered with a polymer-metallic stent. Improved polymeric designs may reduce risk of thrombus deposition at the site of stent implantation. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 46:503–507, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

One‐Year Results of the CRISTAL Trial,a Randomized Comparison of Cypher Sirolimus‐Eluting Coronary Stents versus Balloon Angioplasty for Restenosis of Drug‐Eluting Stents

Objectives: We compared the efficacy of the Cypher Select? (Cordis Corporation, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) versus balloon angioplasty (BA) in in‐stent restenosis (ISR) of Taxus? or Taxus Liberté? paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES; Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) or Cypher/Cypher Select SES. Background: Optimal treatment strategies have not been identified for drug‐eluting stent (DES) ISR. Methods: Patients with a native coronary artery SES or PES ISR were randomized to SES or BA. In addition, a control group included BMS ISR treated with SES. Angiographic control was performed at 12 months. Results: 281 patients were enrolled. Significant differences favoring SES over BA were noted in immediate and net gain (1.39 ± 0.51 vs. 0.97 ± 0.54 mm, P < 0.0001 and 1.07 ± 0.69 vs. 0.49 ± 0.67 mm, P < 0.0001), 12‐month mean luminal diameter (MLD; 2.14 ± 0.62 vs. 1.71 ± 0.55 mm, P < 0.0001) and percent diameter stenosis (%DS; 21 ± 19.24 vs. 29.82 ± 18.47, P = 0.001). There was no significant difference at 12 months between SES and BA in the primary end‐point late lumen loss (LLL; 0.37 ± 0.57 vs.0.41 ± 0.63, P = 0.73) and in in‐stent binary restenosis (11.1% vs. 14%, P = 0.59). Target‐lesion revascularization (TLR) was numerically lower in patients treated with SES (5.9% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.097). There was no difference according to the initial DES. In contrast, significantly higher immediate and net gains and MLD were noted in the BMS control group treated by SES. Conclusions: In this angiographic randomized trial comparing SES and BA in SES or PES restenosis, 12 month MLD, immediate and net gain, and %DS favored SES whereas no difference was noted in LLL. Condensed Abstract Optimal treatment strategies have not been identified for sirolimus‐ (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) in‐stent restenosis (ISR). We randomized patients with a native coronary artery SES or PES ISR to SES or BA. In addition, a control group included BMS ISR treated with SES. There was no difference in the primary end‐point, late lumen loss (LLL) at 12 months between the SES and BA groups. However, follow‐up MLD and immediate and net gain favored SES. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:586–595)     

Comparison of one-year clinical outcomes with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in everyday practice

BACKGROUND:

In randomized trials, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been shown to be superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in reducing restenosis. However, the effectiveness of PES in patients treated during routine practice has not been fully established.

METHODS:

A retrospective comparison of PES with BMS in consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from April 2003 to March 2004 was conducted. Outcomes included the composite of death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at one year, as well as stent thrombosis.

RESULTS:

A total of 512 patients were treated with PES, and 722 patients were treated with BMS. Patients in the PES group were more likely to receive stents that were 20 mm in length or longer (52.2% versus 33.3%, P<0.0001), 2.5 mm in diameter or smaller (29.1% versus 12.5%, P<0.0001) and implanted in bifurcation positions (15.4% versus 11.6%, P=0.02). At one year, the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction and TLR was 6.1% in the PES group compared with 10.8% in the BMS group (P=0.004). The one-year rate of stent thrombosis was 0.59% in the PES group compared with 0.28% in the BMS group (P=0.4).

CONCLUSIONS:

Despite being used in higher-risk lesions, there was a lower rate of major cardiac events at one year in patients treated with PES, primarily driven by the reduction in TLR. Thus, the experience with PES in contemporary practice applied to a broader population appears to be consistent with the results reported in randomized trials.     

Four‐year clinical outcome of sirolimus‐ and paclitaxel‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents for the percutaneous treatment of stable coronary artery disease

Background : There are limited data on the long‐term safety and efficacy profile of coronary stent implantation in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objective : We aimed to assess the 4‐year clinical outcome in patients who received a bare‐metal stent (BMS), sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), or a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) for the percutaneous treatment of stable angina in our center during 2000–2005. Methods : In the study period, a total of 2,449 consecutive patients (BMS = 1,005; SES = 373; and PES = 1071) underwent a PCI as part of three historical PCI‐cohorts for stable angina and were routinely followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : At 4 years follow‐up, 264 BMS patients (26.8%) had a MACE, compared to 75 SES patients (20.9%) and 199 PES patients (23.9%). Multivariate analysis showed that SES and PES were superior to BMS with respect to MACE [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47–0.81; HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55–0.82, respectively]. The occurrence of MACE was significantly lower in the SES and PES population, primarily due to less target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) procedures (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37–0.75; HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62–0.81, respectively). The occurrence of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis was equally rare with each stent type. There were no significant differences between SES and PES on death, myocardial infarction, TVR, and MACE. Conclusion : These findings suggest that SES and PES result in decreased TVR procedures and MACE compared to BMS at 4 years follow‐up. SES or PES implantation should be the preferred choice over BMS for patients with stable CAD undergoing PCI. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for treatment of bare metal stent restenosis

First-generation drug-eluting stents have been proved to be very effective for the treatment of bare metal stent in-stent restenosis (BMS ISR). The efficacy of second-generation drug-eluting stents in this setting remains less well defined. The present study compared the long-term clinical outcome after treatment of BMS ISR using the second-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES) to that after treatment using the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). A total of 174 patients with BMS ISR underwent percutaneous coronary intervention using a PES (95 patients) or an EES (79 patients) from 2003 to 2010. The patients in the PES and EES groups were followed up for 42.2 ± 22.2 and 18.3 ± 8.2 months, respectively. The primary end point of the study was survival free of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The secondary end points were survival free of the need for revascularization of the target lesion and definite stent thrombosis. The baseline clinical and angiographic parameters were comparable between the 2 groups. The freedom from major adverse cardiac event rate at 1 year of follow-up was 4.5% and 13.6% (p = 0.0663) for the EES and PES groups, respectively. The target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates were greater in the PES group at 1 year of follow-up compared to the EES group (1% vs 11.5%, p = 0.0193). The rate of myocardial infarction, death, and definite stent thrombosis for the EES and PES groups at 1 year of follow-up was 0% versus 4.2% (p = 0.0984), 3% versus 2.1% (p = 0.6855), and 0% versus 2.1% (p = 0.2382), respectively. The use of a PES for treatment of ISR was the only independent predictor of recurrent TLR at 1 year of follow-up (odds ratios 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.18; p = 0.0193). During the complete follow-up period, the rates of TLR, myocardial infarction, death, major adverse cardiac events, and definite stent thrombosis were not different between the 2 treatment groups. In conclusion, EES resulted in reduced rates of TLR at 1 year of follow-up compared to PES when used for treatment of BMS ISR. However, at long-term follow-up, the event rates between EES and PES were comparable after treatment of BMS ISR.     

Effect of clopidogrel discontinuation at 1?year after drug eluting stent placement on soluble CD40L, P-selectin and C-reactive protein levels: DECADES (Discontinuation Effect of Clopidogrel After Drug Eluting Stent): a multicenter, open-label study

Antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel has been shown to reduce major adverse cardiac events in acute coronary syndromes and after percutaneous interventions. This effect is not only due to its anti-platelet effect but also possibly due to an anti-inflammatory effect. The effect of clopidogrel cessation after one year of therapy on markers of inflammation has been investigated in diabetics and showed an increase in platelet aggregation as well as hsCRP and surface P-selectin levels. This was an exploratory multicenter prospective open-label single arm study of 98 non-diabetic patients who had received one or more drug eluting stents and were coming to the end of their 12 months course of clopidogrel therapy. The effect of clopidogrel cessation on expression of biomarkers: sCD40L, soluble P-selectin and hsCRP was measured right before clopidogrel cessation (day 0), and subsequently at 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks after drug withdrawal. A median increase in sCD40L expression from 224 to 324.5 pg/ml was observed between baseline and 4 weeks after clopidogrel cessation, which corresponded to a 39% mean percent change based on an ANCOVA model (P < 0.001). Over the 4 weeks observation period the change in sCD40L expression correlated weakly with soluble P-selectin levels (at 4 weeks Spearman’s correlation coefficient = 0.32; P = 0.0024). Increase in P-selectin expression from baseline was statistically significant at week 1 and 2. Conversely, hsCRP level decreased by 21% at 1 week (P = 0.008) and was still reduced by 18% by 4 weeks (P = 0.062). The change in sCD40L expression appeared to vary with the type of drug eluting stent. Patients treated with drug eluting stents at 1 year after implantation display significant increase in sCD40L and decrease in hsCRP after clopidogrel cessation. Further studies should elucidate if this increase in sCD40L levels reflects solely the removal of the inhibitory effects of clopidogrel on platelet activity or rather an increase in pro-inflammatory state. The latter hypothesis may be less likely given decrease in hsCRP levels. Randomized studies are urgently needed to establish potential link of clopidogrel discontinuation and vascular outcomes.     

Difference in neointimal coverage at chronic stage between bare metal stent and sirolimus-eluting stent evaluated at stent-strut level by optical coherence tomography

Compared with the bare metal stent (BMS), suppression of neointimal growth in the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) reduced restenosis at the cost of more exposed struts that could impose the risk of stent thrombosis. The present study was conducted to analyze neointimal coverage patterns of stents at a strut-level after implantation of BMS or SES with the use of optical coherence tomography (OCT). We enrolled 35 patients and analyzed neointimal coverage of every strut from 41 stents (BMS: n = 8, SES: n = 33) by using OCT at follow-up of the stent implantation. All of the 371 struts from eight BMSs were covered with ≥100 μm of neointima, while 19.8 and 3.5 % of 3,478 struts from 33 SESs were uncovered (neointimal thickness of <10 μm) and malapposed, respectively. The histogram of neointimal thickness showed basically normal distribution in BMS but skewed in SES. No regional difference in neointimal thickness was observed in BMS (proximal, 535.7 ± 25.2 μm; body, 532.4 ± 17.0 μm; distal, 485.8 ± 27.0 μm). In SES, however, the body segment showed thinner neointima [median 40 μm (interquartile range (IQR) 10–90 μm)] than proximal [60 μm (IQR 10–140 μm), p < 0.001] or distal [50 μm (IQR 10–110 μm), p < 0.001] segment, while uncovered and malapposed struts were more frequent in the proximal and body segments. In conclusion, SES, compared with BMS, showed more suppressed neointimal growth with regional variation: neointimal thickness was the least in the body part while the ratio of exposed and malapposed struts was minimal in the distal segment. OCT was useful for a strut-level analysis of neointimal coverage over the whole stent.     

The efficacy of everolimus-eluting stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: outcomes of 2-year clinical follow-up

First-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) demonstrated delay in vascular healing and increase in incidence of late and very late stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). Second-generation DES, however, have shown a reduction of late and very late stent thrombosis compared with first-generation DES. Thus, we decided to evaluate whether the second-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES) has an advantage over BMS in Japanese patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study was conducted in two centers, retrospective, non-randomized and observational design in patients with STEMI. Three-hundred eighty patients were randomly selected to receive EES (198 patients) or cobalt-chromium BMS (182 patients). The primary endpoints were cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis (ST). At 2 years, the rates of TLR, TVR, and recurrent MI were significantly lower in the EES group than in the BMS group (TLR 1.5 vs. 8.3 %, p < 0.05; TVR 2.5 vs. 9.4 %, p < 0.05; recurrent MI 1.0 vs. 4.1 %, p < 0.05), and the rate of ST was also significantly lower in the EES group than in the BMS group (0.5 vs. 4.3 %, p < 0.05). Thus, major adverse cardiac events defined at the composite cardiac death, MI, TLR, TVR, or ST were significantly lower in EES group than in BMS group (3.0 vs. 9.9 %, p = 0.008). The rate of cardiac death, however, did not differ between both groups. In STEMI patients, EES may be associated with improved outcomes—specifically, a significant reduction in TVR, ST, and recurrent MI compared to BMS throughout 2 years.     

Stenting and Adjunctive Delivery of Paclitaxel Via Balloon Coating Versus Durable Polymeric Matrix for De Novo Coronary Lesions: Clinical and Angiographic Results from the Prospective Randomized Trial

Background

There is limited comparative clinical data regarding the safety and efficacy profile of paclitaxel delivery via balloon versus stent‐polymer matrix. In this study, we aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic results of two different methods of paclitaxel delivery among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for single de novo coronary lesions.

Methods

A total of 202 patients undergoing PCI due to symptomatic heart disease and at least one significant coronary artery lesion were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter non‐inferiority trial. Eligible patients were randomized to a revascularization with either a paclitaxel eluting stent (PES = Coroflex Please, B.Braun) or a bare metal stent (BMS) followed by a paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) dilation (BMS = Coroflex + PCB = Sequent Please, B.Braun). Clinical follow‐up was obtained at 9 months in all patients, whereas angiographic in a subset of 94 (46.5%) patients.

Results

The baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. At 9 months, the primary endpoint of in‐stent late lumen loss in BMS + PCB was comparable and non‐inferior to PES (0.21 ± 0.5 vs. 0.30 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. P_non‐inf < 0.05). At 9 months, the incidence of MACE (7.0 vs. 6.9%, HR = 1, 95%CI: 0.3–2.8; P = 0.99), comprising the occurrence of myocardial infarction (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.62, 95%CI: 0.4–6.5; P = 0.32), target lesion revascularization (6.9 vs. 5.0%, HR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.4–4.4; p = 0.54) and stent thrombosis (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 2.01, 95%CI: 0.5–7.4; P = 0.74) was comparable between BMS + PCB and PES, respectively. In the BMS + PCB group, thrombosis tended to occur within 30 days (3.9 vs. 1.0%; P = 0.38).

Conclusions

Paclitaxel delivery via drug coated balloon or polymer‐stent matrix achieved comparable angiographic and clinical results among patients with de novo coronary lesions. BMS + PCB revascularization was associated with a higher rate of stent thrombosis when compared to newer generation drug eluting stents, therefore, should be recommended as a bail‐out for PCB alone angioplasty.

     

Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Uncertainties exist with regard to the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in diabetes patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the outcome of PES versus SES in diabetes patients undergoing PCI. A literature search was started, and we found all studies conducted from 2005 to 2016. We systematically searched the literature through the MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and EMBASE. Quality assessments were evaluated with the Jadad scale. Data were extracted considering the characteristics of efficacy and the safety of the designs. 12 RCTs satisfy the inclusion criteria. There is a significant decrease of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (MD = 0.65, 95 % CI = 0.42–1.00, P = 0.05) in a year and more than 1 year (MD = 0.54, 95 % CI = 0.37–0.78, P = 0.00010). A significant decrease of target vessel revascularization (TVR) in more than 1 year is (MD = 0.62, 95 % CI = 0.47–0.81, P = 0.0004). A significant decrease of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in more than 1 year is (MD = 0.73, 95 % CI = 0.60–0.89, P = 0.002). Nevertheless, there is no significant difference in mortality (MD = 0.85, 95 % CI = 0.66–1.11, P = 0.24), stent thrombosis (ST) (MD = 0.65, 95 % CI = 0.35–1.21, P = 0.18), or myocardial infarction (MD = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.71–1.51, P = 0.84). SES may be more significant in decreasing TLR, TVR, and MACE than PES without significantly increasing mortality, ST and MI in diabetes patients.     

Drug-eluting stent implantation could be associated with long-term coronary endothelial dysfunction

Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation may be associated with endothelial dysfunction. However, changes in long-term endothelial function based on the type of DES remain largely unknown. We assessed coronary endothelial function after DES implantation compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) and determined the differences according to DES type. Patients who had single BMS or DES implantation in the left anterior descending artery and showed no restenosis in follow-up angiography at 6 to 9 months were assigned to the BMS group (5 patients) or DES group (9 sirolimus-eluting stents, SES, and 8 paclitaxel-eluting stents, PES). Endothelium-dependent vasomotion, after intracoronary infusion of acetylcholine, was determined by quantitative coronary angiography. Also, endothelium-independent vasomotion was assessed after nitrate infusion. In the distal and far distal segments, the SES (SES versus BMS, distal: -27.6 +/- 16.3% versus -0.6 +/- 1.6%; P = 0.01, far distal: -24.8 +/- 13.2% versus -0.9 +/- 1.3%; P = 0.02) and PES groups (PES versus BMS, distal: -25.4 +/- 17.1% versus -0.6 +/- 1.6%; P = 0.01, far distal: -26.6 +/- 15.9% versus -0.9 +/- 1.3%; P = 0.01) had similar patterns showing significant vasoconstriction compared with the BMS group. In addition, the DES group showed a significant reduction of diameter in distal (SES: P = 0.001, PES: P = 0.04) and far distal segments (SES: P = 0.002, PES: P = 0.001) compared with proximal and near proximal segments. However, the BMS group did not demonstrate significantly different vasomotion between proximal and distal segments. Vasodilatation by nitrate infusion was preserved in all subjects. SES or PES implantation could be associated with the similar pattern of endothelial dysfunction identified predominantly in the long distal portion of the treated vessel.     

Single-center randomized evaluation of paclitaxel-eluting versus conventional stent in acute myocardial infarction (SELECTION)

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the superiority of the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in reducing neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) over its corresponding bare metal stent (BMS) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Primary PCI with stent implantation is the repercussion strategy of choice for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); nonetheless restenosis rate is still high. Drug-eluting stents have been proven to reduce restenosis rate in many settings, but their use during primary PCI is still controversial. METHODS: Consecutive patients with STEMI <12 hours were randomized to receive PES or BMS. The primary end-point was the percentage of the stent volume obstructed by neointimal proliferation (NIH) measured by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) at a 7-month angiographic follow-up. Secondary end-points were binary restenosis rate and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, i.e., death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization). RESULTS: Eighty patients with STEMI were randomized into the PES or BMS group. Patients were well matched for baseline characteristics and the index procedure was always successful. In-hospital and 1-month MACE were 2.5% per group. NIH at 7 months was 4.6% versus 20% (P< 0.01), late lumen loss 0.1 versus 1.01 mm (P = 0.01). MACE were 7.5% versus 42.5% (P = 0.001) with no difference in death and recurrent myocardial infarction rates. Late-acquired incomplete stent apposition (ISA) rate was 5.1% versus 2.7% (P = 0.65). One subacute stent thrombosis was reported in each group. CONCLUSIONS: PES was superior to its corresponding BMS in reducing NIH in the STEMI setting without any increase in early and long-term clinical adverse events.     

Early and mid-term clinical outcomes with the CATANIA coronary stent system vs. bare metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease

BackgroundThe potential for the CATANIA (CAT) stent to be an alternative to both bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES) has been recently demonstrated in the Assessment of The LAtest Non-Thrombogenic Angioplasty stent (ATLANTA) first-in-human study. The aim of the present study was to compare short-term outcomes of patients treated with the CAT stent with those treated with BMS.MethodsBased on an internal registry, the 30-day and 6-month risk-adjusted outcomes for patients who received the CAT stent (n=254) were compared against outcomes of a historical cohort of patients who received BMS (n=552) between January 2001 and December 2001.ResultsAt 30 days, use of BMS vs. the CAT stent resulted in borderline significant differences with respect to major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and cardiac death or myocardial infarction. At 6 months, BMS showed a statistically significant higher adjusted risk of MACCE (HR 2.79, 95% CIs 1.20–6.48, P=.017) and no differences with respect to the subcomponent end points. The cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis (Academic Research Consortium defined) at 6 months was 0.39% for the CAT stent and 2.35% for the BMS.ConclusionsThis study confirms the favorable early and mid-term safety profile and the high-level efficacy of the CAT stent in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions seen in the ATLANTA trial. The use of stents with a nanothin Polyzene-F surface treatment provided improved results with respect to BMS and lower risk of acute and subacute stent thrombosis.     

The wound healing response after implantation of a drug-eluting stent is impaired persistently in the long term

A 70-year-old man underwent stent implantation for right coronary artery (RCA) lesions with a bare metal stent (BMS) and two sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). However, as both the BMS and SES stented sites developed restenosis after 13 months, he underwent target lesion revascularization using directional coronary atherectomy (DCA). On histopathology, the restenosis lesion at the SES-deployed site showed greater inflammation and less re-endothelialization than that at the BMS-deployed site. Three months later, the SES-deployed site developed a second restenosis, in which paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) were implanted (PES-in-SES), while the BMS-deployed site was restenosis free. Five years later, restenosis was absent in these RCA lesions. However, by optical coherence tomography and/or coronary angioscopy, the PES-in-SES site in the RCA showed poor neointimal coverage over the stent struts and yellowish neointima, suggesting lipid-rich neoatheroma formation, whereas at the BMS site appropriate white neointima formation was observed. Drug-eluting stents still have problems of persistent inflammation, inappropriate neointima formation, and neoatherosclerosis. Although we are now in the era of second generation DESs in which better stent performance would be promising, we should remember that we are obliged to continue to follow-up all patients in whom first generation DESs such as SES or PES have been placed.     

Efficacy and safety of a double‐coated paclitaxel‐eluting coronary stent: The EUCATAX trial

Objectives : The aim of this study was the comparison of a new double‐coated paclitaxel‐eluting coronary stent with bare‐metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background : Stent coating with biodegradable polymers as a platform for elution of drugs has the potential for complete elution of drugs and for decreasing the risk of late complications. Methods : Multicenter randomized trial comparing a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) coated with a biodegradable polymer and glycocalyx with the equivalent BMS. We randomly assigned 422 patients with de novo coronary lesions to PES (211 patients) or to BMS (211 patients). Primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Clinical secondary end points were target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis (ST), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Angiographic secondary end points were late loss and binary restenosis. Results : At 1 year of follow‐up, TVF rate was 9.5% in the PES group and 17.1% in the BMS group (P = 0.02), and MACE rate was 10% in PES and 19% in BMS arm (P = 0.009). All other secondary end points were reached but ST. ST rate was low and similar in both study arms. Conclusions : The study shows that patients treated with PES with dual coating technology had significantly lower incidence of TVF and MACE than those treated with BMS design; however, longer follow‐up should be necessary to assess true advantages of this technology compared with the previous one. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.