药物洗脱支架置入术的长期随访

目的:了解药物洗脱支架(DES)置入术的长期疗效.方法:收集255例DES置入及258例金属裸支架(BMS)置入患者的临床资料并进行长期临床随访,记录2组患者在随访时主要心血管不良事件(MACE)的发生情况.结果:与BMS组比较,DES组心绞痛再发率(6.27%:17.05%,P＜0.05)、MACE发生率(3.92%:10.47%,P＜0.05)及因心脏病住院率(5.29%:15.19%,P＜0.01)明显减少,而在晚期支架血栓形成、全因性死亡、非致死性心肌梗死及恶性肿瘤方面,2组相比差异无统计学意义.经校正了不匹配因素后发现应用BMS与心绞痛再发(r＝0.084 9,P＝0.048)、心因性死亡(r＝0.098 2,P＝0.027)、MACE(r＝0.093 7,P＝0.035)及因心脏病住院(r＝0.090 8,P＝0.041)的发生呈正相关.结论:与BMS相比,DES可减少心绞痛再发及MACE,而不增加晚期支架血栓形成及全因性死亡.     

Nine-year clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents for large coronary vessel lesions

Objectives To evaluate the very long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) for patients with large coronary vessels. Methods From April 2004 to October 2006, 2407 consecutive patients undergoing de novo lesion percutaneous coronary intervention with reference vessel diameter greater than or equal to 3.5 mm at Fu Wai Hospital in Beijing, China, were prospectively enrolled into this study. We obtained 9-year clinical outcomes including death, myocardial infarction (MI), thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, the composite of death, MI, and TVR). We performed Cox’s proportional-hazards models to assess relative risks of all the outcome measures after propensity match. Results After propensity scoring, 514 DES-treated patients were matched to 514 BMS-treated patients. The patients treated with BMS were associated with higher risk of TLR (HR: 2.55, 95% CI: 1.520–4.277, P = 0.0004) and TVR (HR: 1.889, 95% CI: 1.185–3.011, P = 0.0075), but the rates of death/MI and MACE were not statistically different. All Academic Research Consortium definition stent thrombosis at 9-year were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions During long-term follow-up through nine years, use of DES in patients with large coronary arteries was still associated with significant reductions in the risks of TLR and TVR.     

Comparison of outcomes between bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents for percutaneous revascularization of internal mammary grafts

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) decrease the need for repeat revascularization in native coronary arteries and vein grafts. This study examined the safety and efficacy of DESs for the treatment of lesions in the internal mammary artery (IMA) conduits and compared the outcomes with those from bare metal stents (BMSs). Records of 69 consecutive patients who underwent stenting of the IMA from 2001 to 2004 were reviewed and analyzed. Of these, 30 patients were treated with DESs (sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents) and 39 patients with BMSs. In-hospital and 6-month clinical outcomes were recorded and compared. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. Lesion location and characteristics were also similar, except for a trend toward longer stent lengths in the DES group (DES 20.2 +/- 7.7 mm vs BMS 14.8 +/- 3.5 mm, p = 0.255). There was no late thrombosis in either group. There were no significant differences in in-hospital and 1- and 6-month outcomes between the 2 groups, including target lesion revascularization with DESs (DESs 3.33% vs BMSs 10%, p = 0.38). In conclusion, DES implantation into IMAs appears safe and is associated with low rates of recurrences. These results may support expansion of use of DESs for the management of IMA stenotic lesions.     

Influence of stent length to lesion length ratio on angiographic and clinical outcomes after implantation of bare metal and drug-eluting stents (the TAXUS-IV Study)

Longer bare metal stent lengths have been associated with greater restenosis. However, the effect of the ratio of stent length to lesion length on clinical and angiographic restenosis after implantation of bare metal and drug-eluting stents has not been clearly defined. Patients in the TAXUS-IV study who underwent single-study stent placement were categorized into tertiles based on ratios of stent length to lesion length. Clinical results at 1 year and angiographic outcomes at 9 months were compared across the 3 groups. The median ratios of stent length to lesion length were 1.20, 1.58, and 2.27 in the 3 tertiles. Analysis segment restenosis rates at 9 months were similar across the 3 tertiles with bare metal stents (24.7% vs 26.7% vs 23.8%, respectively, p = 0.90 for trend) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (11.7% vs 6.5% vs 5.4%, respectively, p = 0.24). Similarly, there were no differences in 1-year rates of target lesion revascularization across the 3 tertiles for bare metal stents (14.6% vs 14.8% vs 13.7%, respectively, p = 0.91) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (6.1% vs 3.6% vs 4.0%, respectively, p = 0.38). By multivariate analysis, the ratio of stent length to lesion length was an independent predictor of neither 9-month angiographic restenosis nor 1-year target lesion revascularization in the bare metal stent arm (odds ratio 1.21, p = 0.36, and hazard ratio 0.80, p = 0.31, respectively) or in the paclitaxel-eluting stent arm (odds ratio 0.86, p = 0.76, and hazard ratio 0.58, p = 0.21, respectively). These data do not support the arbitrary use of larger ratios of stent length to lesion length in patients who undergo implantation of drug-eluting stents.     

Meta-analysis comparing drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents

We performed a meta-analysis of 10 randomized trials of 5,066 patients with 6 to 12 months of follow-up. The summary risk differences excluded any major differences between the 2 types of stents for death (0.12%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.34% to 0.58%, p = 0.60) and overall myocardial infarction (0.04%, 95% CI -0.72% to 0.81%, p = 0.91). There was a modest increase in the risk of Q-wave myocardial infarction with drug-eluting stents (0.36%, 95% CI -0.04% to 0.77%, p = 0.080) but no difference in non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (-0.26%, 95% CI -0.95% to 0.43%, p = 0.47). The trend for increased risk of Q-wave myocardial infarction was seen for paclitaxel and sirolimus stents (risk differences 0.28% and 0.58%, respectively). Drug-eluting stents also had a nonsignificant trend for higher risk of thrombosis (0.29%, 95% CI -0.08% to 0.66%, p = 0.13). We conclude that sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents are equivalent to bare-metal stents in terms of mortality and overall myocardial infarction risk for the first year of follow-up; the meta-analysis excludes with considerable confidence the presence of large, clinically relevant differences for these outcomes.     

Comparison of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in cardiac allograft vasculopathy

Although not a definitive treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention offers a palliative benefit to patients with cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Given the superior outcomes with drug-eluting stents (DESs) over bare metal stents (BMSs) in native coronary artery disease, similar improvements might be expected in transplant patients; however, the results have been mixed. Consecutive cardiac transplantation recipients at a single center receiving a stent for de novo cardiac allograft vasculopathy from 1997 to 2009 were retrospectively analyzed according to receipt of a DES versus a BMS. The angiographic and clinical outcomes were subsequently evaluated at 1 year. The baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were similar among those receiving DESs (n = 18) and BMSs (n = 16). Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no difference in the reference diameter, lesion length, or pre-/postprocedural minimal luminal diameter. At the 12-month angiographic follow-up visit, the mean lumen loss was significantly lower in the DES group than in the BMS group (0.19 ± 0.73 mm vs 0.76 ± 0.97 mm, p = 0.02). The DES group also had a lower rate of in-stent restenosis (12.5% vs 33%, p = 0.18), as well as a significantly lower rate of target lesion revascularization (0% vs 19%, p = 0.03). At 1 year, DESs were associated with a lower composite rate of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (12% vs 38%, p = 0.04). In conclusion, DESs are safe and effective in the suppression of neointimal hyperplasia after percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiac allograft vasculopathy, resulting in significantly lower rates of late lumen loss and target lesion revascularization, as well as a reduced combined rate of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction.     

Drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents following rotational atherectomy for heavily calcified coronary lesions: late angiographic and clinical follow-up results

OBJECTIVES: To study the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents following rotablation of severely calcified lesions. BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents are increasingly showing promising results in complex lesions and high-risk patients. Heavily calcified stenoses have not been adequately studied, and form a challenge both for the immediate and late outcomes. METHODS: Single-center prospective study among 27 patients treated by rotablation followed by a drug-eluting stent implantation for angiographically heavily calcified lesions, compared with a historical control of 34 patients treated by rotablation followed by bare stent implantation for the same indication. The primary endpoint was the late lumen loss at 9 months; secondary endpoints were binary restenosis and major adverse cardiac events at 9 months. A 2-year follow-up directed to death and myocardial infarction was added. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable regarding baseline and procedural characteristics. Angiographic success was 100% for both groups. At 9 months, there was a significant difference in the late lumen loss (0.11 +/- 0.7 mm in the DES group and 1.11 +/- 0.9 mm in the BMS group, P = 0.001). This difference was manifest in the clinical event rates at late follow-up (combined incidence of death due to any cause, MI, and TLR was 7.4% in the DES group and 38.2% in the BMS group; P = 0.004). At 2 years, there were 5 deaths in each group (P = 0.5) and 2 infarctions in the BMS group versus none in the DES group (P = 1.0). CONCLUSION: The combination of rotablation and drug-eluting stent implantation (Rota-DES) has a favorable effect on clinical and angiographic outcomes at 9 months when treating heavily calcified lesions compared to rotablation followed by bare metal stent implantation. No safety concerns are observed at 2 years.     

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

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

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.     

Outcome of overlapping heterogenous drug-eluting stents and of overlapping drug-eluting and bare metal stents

Overlapping homogenous drug-eluting stents (DESs) may be used instead of overlapping bare metal stents (BMSs) to treat coronary lesions longer than available stents. Yet, no data are available on patients treated with overlapping heterogenous DESs or DESs and BMSs. We prospectively assessed 9-month clinical outcome and 6-month angiographic late loss (evaluated at 5 different lesion segments) in a consecutive series of 40 patients who received overlapping homogenous DESs (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] or paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES]), heterogenous DESs (SES + PES), or overlapping DESs and BMSs. In 8 patients (7 with angiographic follow-up) with overlapping heterogenous DESs, no angiographic or clinical adverse event was observed. Moreover, in-segment late loss was similar to that of patients who received homogenous DESs. In 8 patients (7 with angiographic follow-up) with overlapping DESs and BMSs, there was a higher incidence of major adverse events (3 repeat percutaneous coronary interventions and 1 death, 50% adverse event rate) and worse in-segment binary restenosis rate compared with patients treated with homogenous or heterogenous DESs (p = 0.02 and 0.012, respectively). Late lumen loss at the site of stent overlap showed significant differences according to type of overlapped stent (1.00 +/- 0.76 mm in DES-BMS overlap, 0.32 +/- 0.55 mm in PES-PES overlap, 0.13 +/- 0.11 in SES-PES overlap, and 0.08 +/- 0.10 mm in SES-SES overlap, p = 0.005). In conclusion, the present study suggests that overlap of DESs and BMSs should be avoided because the antirestenotic effect of DESs is skewed by contiguous BMS implantation. Overlap between SESs and PESs in this very preliminary report was associated with no specific adverse event.     

Comparison of outcomes for patients receiving drug-eluting versus bare metal stents for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

The outcomes for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare metal stents (BMSs) have been compared in many studies for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. However, little is known about the relative outcomes for patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The aim of the present study was to compare the NSTEMI outcomes for PCI with DESs and BMSs. New York's PCI registry was used to propensity-match 4,776 pairs of patients with NSTEMI who had received DESs and BMSs from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007. These patients were followed up through December 31, 2008 to test for differences in mortality, target vessel revascularization, and total repeat revascularization. The outcomes were also compared for various patient subsets. At a median follow-up period of 3.68 years, the patients receiving DESs had significantly lower mortality (16.58% vs 14.52%, difference 2.06%, p<0.001), target vessel revascularization (13.08% vs 11.04%, p=0.009), and total repeat revascularization (22.16% vs 18.77%, p<0.001). The patients receiving paclitaxel-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents both experienced superior outcomes compared to patients receiving BMSs. The patients receiving DESs had significantly lower mortality rates than their propensity-matched counterparts receiving BMSs when they were ≥65 years (difference 2.29%, p=0.01) and male (difference 2.77%, p=0.003). In conclusion, patients with NSTEMI undergoing PCI experienced lower 4-year mortality, target vessel revascularization, and repeat revascularization rates when they had received DESs than when they had received BMSs, and patients who were >65 years old, and men received notable benefits.     

Comparison of effects of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents on plasma C-reactive protein levels

After coronary stenting, inflammatory mechanisms play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of neointimal proliferation and in-stent restenosis. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown to decrease in-stent restenosis in different studies. We compared plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) levels after DES implantation with levels after bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. We performed percutaneous coronary intervention with a single stent in 67 patients (54 men; 59 +/- 9 years of age; n = 21 in the BMS group, n = 46 in the DES group) who had stable angina. Plasma CRP levels were determined before intervention and at 48 hours, 72 hours, and 2 weeks after coronary stenting. There was no difference in clinical and angiographic baseline characteristics except that the DES group had more patients with diabetes (34.8% vs 9.5%, p = 0.04), smaller reference vessels (2.95 +/- 0.53 vs 3.29 +/- 0.53 mm, p = 0.02), and smaller stent diameters (3.0 +/- 0.4 mm vs 3.4 +/- 0.5 mm, p <0.01). Plasma CRP levels at 48 hours (13.4 +/- 14.7 vs 5.9 +/- 4.9 mg/L, p <0.01) and 72 hours (16.7 +/- 19.8 vs 5.4 +/- 3.9 mg/L, p <0.01) after stent implantation were significantly higher in the BMS than in the DES group. In conclusion, DESs showed significantly lower plasma CRP levels after coronary stenting compared with BMSs. This may reflect the potent effects of DESs on acute inflammatory reactions induced by coronary intervention.     

Impact of drug-eluting stents on clinical and angiographic outcomes in dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have an advantage over bare metal stents (BMS) in patients on dialysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using SES was performed in 54 dialysis patients with 69 lesions. A control group for comparison comprised 54 consecutive dialysis patients with 58 lesions who underwent PCI using BMS. Angiographic and clinical follow-ups were scheduled at 9 months. After the procedure, minimum lumen diameter (MLD) was similar between the 2 groups. At follow-up, the SES group had a higher MLD than the BMS group (1.98+/-0.83 mm vs 1.50+/-0.78 mm, p<0.01). In-stent restenosis rate was lower in lesions treated with SES than in those with BMS (22% vs 40%, p=0.048). However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups for in-segment restenosis (31% vs 43%, p=0.3). During follow-up, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularization (TLR) (14% vs 21%, p=0.4) between the SES and BMS groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, SES, in comparison with BMS, reduced in-stent restenosis in patients on dialysis. However, in-segment restenosis and TLR were not statistically different between lesions treated with SES and those with BMS.     

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

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

Use and long-term outcome of bare metal stent implantation in the drug-eluting stent era

BACKGROUND: Although drug-eluting stents (DES) are widely used today, bare metal stents (BMS) are still frequently employed. We investigated the utilization and clinical outcomes of BMS implantation since we first began using DES. METHODS: The clinical course following percutaneous intervention with de novo implantation of BMS was studied beginning in July 2004, when sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) were first used in our hospital, to August 2006. Outcomes following BMS and SES implantation were compared. RESULTS: BMS implantation was carried out in 160 lesions and SES implantation in 242 lesions. Follow-up coronary angiography was performed for 208 lesions (78 lesions in which BMS were implanted and 130 lesions in which SES were implanted) within 1 year. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the SES and BMS groups. Regardless of the reason for BMS implantation, the rates of in-stent restenosis and target lesion revascularization were higher in the BMS group than in the SES group. However, the rate of in-stent restenosis and target lesion revascularization of BMS in lesions with a diameter of 4.0mm or greater was 0%. CONCLUSIONS: In order to reduce the risk of in-stent restenosis and target lesion revascularization, we recommend implantation of BMS with a diameter of 4.0 mm or greater or SES unless it is contraindicated.     

Correlates of clinical restenosis following intracoronary implantation of drug-eluting stents

Despite significant decreases in restenosis and repeated intervention achieved using drug-eluting stents (DESs), the benefit has not been homogenous across all patient and lesion subsets. Identification of correlates of DES restenosis may allow a differing management approach and lead to improved patient outcomes. The study population consisted of 3,535 consecutive patients (5,046 lesions) who underwent successful sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation for >or=1 native coronary artery or bypass graft lesion from April 2003 to September 2006. From this cohort, 197 patients (237 lesions) were identified to have in-stent restenosis (ISR) requiring revascularization within 12 months of stent implantation. This group was compared with the remainder of the patient population. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of DES ISR. Independent correlates of DES ISR using multivariate analysis included both clinical and procedural factors. Clinical predictors were age, hypertension, and unstable angina. Procedural predictors were left anterior descending artery intervention, number of stents implanted, stented length/lesion, and lack of intravascular ultrasound guidance. Implantation of >or=3 stents was associated with a significantly higher restenosis risk (9.7% vs 5.1%; p=0.0003). A 10-mm increase in stented length was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.18 (95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.35). Diabetes, stent diameter, and stent type were found not to be predictive of DES ISR. In conclusion, correlates of DES ISR included both clinical and procedural factors. Limiting the number of stents and stented length, in addition to intravascular ultrasound guidance, may minimize DES ISR.     

Frequency of coronary arterial late angiographic stent thrombosis (LAST) in the first six months: outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents

Concerns have been raised about the long-term safety of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation due to late angiographic stent thrombosis (LAST). We investigated the incidence and 6-month clinical and angiographic outcomes of LAST after DES versus bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. This study comprised 6,551 patients treated with BMSs (n = 4,104) or DESs (n = 2,447). LAST was defined as angiographically proved stent thrombotic occlusion with acute ischemic symptoms >30 days after stenting. Major adverse cardiac events were defined as death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Patients treated with DESs had a significantly higher risk profile than did patients treated with BMSs. There were 8 cases (0.33%) of LAST in the DES group and 7 (0.17%) in the BMS group, showing similar event rates after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 18.4, p = 0.9). Four patients with LAST treated with DESs (50%) and 1 treated with BMSs (14%) were associated with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. Two cases (25%) of LAST with DESs occurred in patients on aspirin monotherapy and another 2 cases (25%) occurred in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy. There was no case of in-hospital death associated with LAST events. At 6-month follow-up after LAST events, major adverse cardiac events occurred in only 3 patients (43%) in the BMS group. In conclusion, the incidence of LAST was similar after DES and BMS implantations. LAST treated with DESs was associated with antiplatelet therapy discontinuation in a significant number of patients, and LAST events also developed on dual antiplatelet therapy. Patients with LAST and DESs showed favorable outcomes during follow-up.