Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes of treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis with sirolimus-eluting stents

Favorable early results of percutaneous drug-eluting stents in unprotected left main (LM) disease are available, but outcome data beyond 6 to 10 months are lacking. We evaluated the long-term results of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) in patients with LM disease. From November 2002 to December 2004, consecutive patients with LM disease, without contraindications to double antiplatelet therapy and undergoing SES implantation, were enrolled prospectively. The primary end point of the study was occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events. In total 85 patients were treated with 118 SES and followed for 595 +/- 230 days. Event-free survival rates at 1 year and 2 years were 85.5% and 78.6%, respectively. Only 2 deaths occurred overall (2.4%), the first in-hospital in a very high-risk patient according to the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation and the second in a patient with severe systolic dysfunction already at the index procedure). Myocardial infarction was adjudicated in 3 patients (3.6%), 2 occurring periprocedurally and 1 during follow-up for a de novo nontarget lesion. There were 7 (10.8%) target lesion revascularizations at 24 months, with all but 1 percutaneous and in a subject with bifurcation LM disease at baseline. At 9-month angiography, late loss was 0.15 +/- 0.81 mm and restenosis rate was 8.2%. An increased incidence of adverse events was noted in patients undergoing SES after dilation with extremely oversized balloons. No case of stent thrombosis was reported. In conclusion, this single-center experience suggests that percutaneous use of SESs to treat LM disease in unselected high-risk patients is safe and effective even 1 year after implantation.     

One-year clinical outcomes of dialysis patients after implantation with sirolimus-eluting coronary stents

Background The efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) has not been established in dialysis patients. Methods and Results This study was a non-randomized observational single-center registry in a community hospital: data for 80 consecutive dialysis patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with SES were compared with those of a historical group of consecutive 124 dialysis patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS). After 1 year, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), comprising cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or target lesion revascularization (TLR), was 25.2% in the SES group and 38.2% in the BMS group (p=0.048). In multivariate analysis, use of SES remained an independent predictor of MACE at 1 year after PCI (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.93, p=0.015). Rates of TLR were 21.7% in the SES group and 30.9% in the BMS group and (p=0.15). Subgroup analysis showed that use of SES was effective in patients with small vessels, non-diabetic patients, and patients without highly calcified lesions. Conclusions In dialysis patients, the implantation of SES was moderately effective in reducing MACE at 1 year after PCI as compared with BMS. However, the TLR rate at 1 year was relatively higher than previously reported. (Circ J 2008; 72: 1430 - 1435).     

Long-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents in unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions

Background:

The treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) bifurcation lesions remains challenging.

Hypothesis:

We hypothesized that the type of drug‐eluting stent would correlate with clinical outcomes for the treatment of uLMCA bifurcation lesions.

Methods:

One hundred fifteen patients who underwent stent implantation using a provisional T‐stenting technique with sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) for uLMCA bifurcation lesions were enrolled. A major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.

Results:

Ninety‐four patients were treated with SES and 21 patients with PES. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Angiographic follow‐up was performed in 99 (86%) patients. Late loss in the LMCA to the left anterior descending coronary artery was significantly lower in the SES group than in the PES group (0.28 ± 0.54 mm vs 1.03 ± 0.45 mm, P<0.001). One case of stent thrombosis occurred in the SES group. During follow‐up with a median of 712 days, the SES group had a lower MACE compared with the PES group (10.6% vs 28.6%, P = 0.032). Cox proportional hazards models including age, sex, diabetes, acute coronary syndrome, true bifurcation, stenting strategy, and type of drug‐eluting stent used (SES vs PES) demonstrated that stent type was the only predictor of MACE (hazard ratio of PES vs SES: 3.88, 95% confidence interval: 1.29–11.67, P = 0.016).

Conclusions:

According to the results of the present study, SES may be associated with more favorable outcomes than PES for stenting of uLMCA bifurcation, which should be further studied by larger trials. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

进口与国产雷帕霉素洗脱支架一年临床疗效比较

目的对因冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病接受择期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）的患者,对比接受国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架（Firebird）和进口雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架（CypherSelect）治疗后1年的临床疗效。方法连续入选2004年1月至2006年12月于北京安贞医院接受介入治疗置入国产和进口雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架（SES）的冠心病患者2000例,根据置入支架类型,分为国产Firebird组（Firebird;1004例）和进口Cypher组（Cypher;996例）。随访1年的临床疗效。初级终点为两组患者支架术后主要心血管不良事件（MACE）的发生率,包括全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死及靶血管重建。次级终点为1年内的支架内血栓发生率。结果 1年的随访结果显示,国产和进口雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架（SES）组的MACE发生率差异无统计学意义（17.8%比18.6%,P=0.666）。两组患者的死亡（4.7%比5.1%,P=0.649）、心肌梗死（4.2%比4.8%,P=0.493）和靶血管重建率（9.0%比8.6%,P=0.795）均相近。两组患者12个月确定/可能性支架内血栓的发生率亦差异未见统计学意义（1.1%比1.0%,P=0.841）。多因素回归分析表明,DES类型不是1年内MACE的独立预测因素。结论国产FirebirdSES和进口CypherSES在术后1年内具有相同的临床疗效和安全性。     

雷帕霉素洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉分叉病变的临床疗效评价

目的:评价雷帕霉素洗脱支架(CYPHERTM支架)治疗冠状动脉分叉病变的近、远期疗效。方法:76例冠状动脉分叉病变且有临床缺血症状的患者接受了主支CYPHERTM支架及分支血管球囊扩张术,术后对患者进行临床随访及冠状动脉造影复查,回顾性分析其结果。结果:76例中有35例行吻合球囊扩张术,主支无残余狭窄或残余狭窄<10%,分支残余狭窄<50%,住院期间无严重并发症如支架内血栓形成、急性心肌梗死、紧急外科冠状动脉搭桥术或死亡等。患者平均随访时间(8.3±1.9)个月,有1例患者心绞痛复发,无心肌梗死或死亡。冠状动脉造影的随访率81.6%,主支平均晚期管腔丢失(0.08±0.02)mm,分支血管晚期管腔丢失(0.20±0.05)mm。靶血管血运重建率5.26%。结论:应用主支CYPHERTM支架和分支血管球囊扩张的方法治疗分叉病变安全、可行,并可有效防止主支血管再狭窄。     

Long-term clinical benefit of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients with de novo coronary stenoses: long-term results of the DIABETES trial.

AIMS: Sirolimus stent implantation has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in diabetics; however, the long-term outcomes in this high-risk population remain unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) when compared with the bare metal stent (BMS) in patients included in the DIABETES (DIABETes and sirolimus Eluting Stent) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The prospective multicentre DIABETES trial randomized 160 diabetic patients with one or more significant coronary stenoses in one, two, or three vessels to either SES or BMS implantation. One-year dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel) was routinely prescribed. Clinical follow-up was scheduled at 1, 9, 12, and 13 months and 2 years. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable between groups. At 2 years, the rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the SES group compared with the BMS group (7.7 vs. 35.0%, P < 0.001). However, the total revascularization rate at 2 years increased in both groups due to progression of atherosclerosis in coronary segments remote from the target lesion (rate of atherosclerosis progression: 7.7% in SES group vs. 10% in BMS group; P = 0.7). During dual antiplatelet treatment (1 year), there was no stent thrombosis in the SES group, whereas two patients presented it in the BMS group. However, after clopidogrel withdrawal, three patients allocated to the SES group presented stent thromboses vs. none in the BMS group. CONCLUSION: SES implantation in diabetic patients remains effective at 2-year follow-up. However, clinical efficacy appeared to be reduced by the occurrence of stent thrombosis between 1 and 2 years.     

Impact of renal insufficiency on clinical and angiographic outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have been demonstrated to reduce restenosis. However, there have been few studies evaluating the impact of renal insufficiency on the angiographic as well as clinical outcomes after SES implantation. METHODS: This study was composed of 304 consecutive patients having 361 lesions who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with SES. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to renal function (group 1 [n = 204]; creatinine clearance (Ccr) > or = 60 ml/min, group 2 [n = 69]; Ccr < 60 ml/min, group 3 [n = 31]; hemodialysis). Clinical and angiographic follow-up were evaluated at 8 months. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up was obtained in all patients and angiographic follow-up was obtained in 283 patients (93.1%). Patients in group 3 showed a higher incidence of previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and there were more female gender, hypertensive, and less hyperlipidemia in this group. Late lumen loss at 8 months was significantly different among the 3 groups (group 1; 0.16 +/- 0.46 mm, group 2; 0.44 +/- 0.62 mm, group 3; 0.81 +/- 0.88 mm, P < 0.0001). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were documented in 22 patients (10.8%) in group 1, 13 patients (18.8%) in group 2, and 12 patients (38.7%) in group 3, respectively (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Neointimal growth following SES implantation is more pronounced in patients with renal insufficiency, especially those undergoing dialysis, compared with patients with normal renal function. Regardless of the beneficial effect of SES, the increased risk of MACE mainly due to high incidence of target vessel revascularization in the subgroup of patients with renal insufficiency should be taken into account.     

Use of sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in routine clinical practice.

Restenosis has long remained the major limitation of intracoronary stenting, but several randomized trials have recently shown that the use of drug-eluting stents appear to reduce markedly the risk of recurrence following treatment of de novo lesions. To evaluate whether the results of randomized trials can be generalized to routine clinical practice, all patients receiving at least one sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in two Swiss hospitals were entered into a prospective registry. Only target vessels with a reference diameter > 3.5 mm were excluded. Clinical follow-up was obtained after 6 months. A total of 183 patients were included. The procedural success was 97.8% and the incidence of in-hospital MACE was 2.2%. At 7 +/- 2 months, 95.6% of the patients were event-free, and target lesion revascularization was required in only three patients (1.6%). The excellent medium-term results obtained with the SES in randomized trials can be replicated in routine clinical practice.     

紫杉醇微孔载药支架与进口雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架治疗冠心病的临床效果比较

目的:比较紫杉醇微孔载药支架和进口雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的临床疗效。方法: 筛选73例行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术的冠心病患者,随机分为两组,紫杉醇微孔载药支架组（紫杉醇组,35例）和进口雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架组（雷帕霉素组,38例）。支架植入术后6个月复查冠状动脉造影（CAG）。随访6个月,对比两组支架内血栓形成、主要心血管不良事件（包括心源性死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、靶病变血运重建）和支架内再狭窄发生率。结果: 随访6个月,两组均未出现急性、亚急性和晚期支架内血栓形成、非致死性心肌梗死和心源性死亡。心绞痛、支架内再狭窄和靶病变血运重建发生率均无统计学差异。结论: 紫杉醇微孔载药支架与进口雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架在治疗冠状动脉简单病变时具有相同的近、中期临床疗效和安全性。     

Long-term clinical outcomes after coronary angioplasty using long stents in small coronary vessels.

The role of coronary stenting in challenging situations, such as small vessels and long lesions, remains controversial. The aim of this study was to examine the procedural, in-hospital, and long-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing angioplasty with long stents in small coronary vessels. We evaluated the procedural success rate and clinical outcomes in 252 consecutive subjects treated by means of the implantation of a single coronary stent in vessels with a mean reference diameter of < 2.5 mm; 128 patients received a short stent (< or = 16 mm) and 124 a long stent (> or = 18 mm). Lesion morphology was more complex in patients treated with long stents (P < 0.05). The mean stent length was 14 +/- 2 mm in the short-stent group and 25 +/- 3 mm in the long-stent group (P < 0.001). The overall procedural success rate (98.4% vs. 97.6%; P = NS) and the rate of major in-hospital adverse events (death, acute myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization; 1.6% vs. 2.4%; P = NS) was similar in the two groups. After 11.7 +/- 7 months of follow-up, there was no difference in the incidence of mortality and myocardial infarction (5% vs. 6.6%; P = NS), but revascularization tended to occur more frequently in the patients treated with long stents (21.7% vs. 13.9%; P = NS). In conclusion, the procedural success rate of single short or long stents in small coronary vessels was similar. Although the incidence of target vessel revascularization tended to be higher in the patients treated with longer stents, 2-year event-free survival was equivalent in the two groups (65% vs. 70%; P = NS).     

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.     

Randomized trial of paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents in small coronary vessels.

AIMS: Sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents effectively reduce restenosis in small coronary vessels. The relative efficacy of these drug-eluting stents in this high-risk subset is not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 360 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo lesions in native coronary vessels with a diameter of <2.80 mm received randomly paclitaxel-eluting stents (n=180) or sirolimus-eluting stents (n=180). The primary endpoint was in-stent late luminal loss. Secondary endpoints were angiographic restenosis and need of target lesion revascularization. The study intended to show that the paclitaxel-eluting stent is not inferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary endpoint. The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.16 mm. Follow-up angiography was performed in 87% of the patients. In-stent late luminal loss in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group was 0.32 mm (upper 95% boundary, 0.42 mm), which was greater than that in the sirolimus-eluting stent group, failing to show the non-inferiority of the paclitaxel-eluting stent to the sirolimus-eluting stent (P>0.99). Angiographic restenosis was found in 19.0% of the lesions in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group and 11.4% of the lesions in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (P=0.047). Target lesion revascularization was performed in 14.7% of the lesions treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents and 6.6% of the lesions treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (P=0.008). CONCLUSION: The paclitaxel-eluting stent is associated with a greater late luminal loss and is less effective in reducing restenosis in small coronary vessels than the sirolimus-eluting stent.     

Comparable clinical outcomes with paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents in unrestricted contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in a contemporaneous cohort of real-world patients. BACKGROUND: A number of randomized comparisons of PES and SES have shown unequivocal advantages for SES in angiographic end points such as late loss. However, the data on clinical outcomes are less consistent. METHODS: All consecutive patients successfully treated with only SES or PES in de novo native vessel lesions between March 2003 and March 2005 were analyzed. Our end points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). We also analyzed late loss and angiographic restenosis. RESULTS: There were 609 patients (1,064 lesions) treated with PES and 674 patients (1,205 lesions) treated with SES. Diabetes mellitus was present in 26.8% of patients and multivessel disease in 75% of patients. Bifurcations made up 16.3% of lesions, chronic occlusions 9.5%, left main 4.8%, and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology type B2/C 75.4%. Despite a higher late loss in the PES group (p = 0.0001), there were no differences in angiographic restenosis (PES 18% vs. SES 17.8%, p = 0.95), TLR (PES 11.9% vs. SES 11%, p = 0.47), or MACE (PES 21.3% vs. SES 21.1%, p = 0.95). The relative risk of MACE for the PES group was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 1.33). Multivariable analysis confirmed the lack of association of stent type with MACE (odds ratio 1.03 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.38], p = 0.83) and TLR (odds ratio 1.08 [95% CI 0.81 to 1.44], p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In this complex cohort, both stent platforms demonstrated similar clinical outcomes despite different late loss.     

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.