Angioscopic differences in neointimal coverage and in persistence of thrombus between sirolimus-eluting stents and bare metal stents after a 6-month implantation.

AIMS: The neointimal coverage and intracoronary thrombi within stented segments at 6 months after implantation between sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and bare metal stents (BMSs) were compared by direct visualization using angioscopy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-six patients (36 stable angina and 10 acute coronary syndrome) were treated with 33 SESs and 33 BMSs. Immediately after and 6 months after stenting, each of the stented segments, edge body, and overlapping segment were observed by angioscopy and the grade of neointimal coverage over the stents was classified as 0: absent neointima, 1: visible struts through thin neointima, or 2: invisible struts. The existence of thrombi was also evaluated. The average grade of the neointimal coverage at 6 months follow-up was lower in the SES than that in the BMS (edge: 1.4+/-0.7 vs. 1.9+/-0.2, body: 1.0+/-0.5 vs. 1.8+/-0.5, overlapping segment: 0.6+/-0.7 vs. 1.8+/-0.5; P<0.0001, P<0.0001, P=0.0069, respectively). The frequency of persistence of thrombus was significantly higher in the SESs than that in the BMSs (86 vs. 29%, respectively; P=0.031). CONCLUSION: The present study suggested a delayed neointimal stent coverage and slower thrombus disappearance process in the SESs in comparison to the BMSs.     

Comparison of neointimal coverage by optical coherence tomography of a sirolimus-eluting stent versus a bare-metal stent three months after implantation

No detailed data regarding neointimal coverage of bare-metal stents (BMSs) at 3 months after implantation was reported to date. This investigation was designed to evaluate the neointimal coverage of BMSs compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) using optical coherence tomography. A prospective optical coherence tomographic follow-up examination was performed 3 months after stent implantation for patients who underwent BMS (n = 16) or SES implantation (n = 24). Neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) thickness on each stent strut and percentage of NIH area in each cross section were measured. Malapposition of stent struts to the vessel wall and the existence of in-stent thrombi were also evaluated. There were 5,076 struts of SESs and 2,875 struts of BMSs identified. NIH thickness and percentage of NIH area in the BMS group were higher than in the SES group (351 +/- 248 vs 31 +/- 39 mum; p <0.0001; 45.0 +/- 14% vs 10.0 +/- 4%; p <0.0001, respectively). The frequency of uncovered struts was higher in the SES group than the BMS group (15% vs 0.1%; p <0.0001). Malapposed struts were observed more frequently in the SES group than the BMS group (15% vs 1.1%; p <0.0001). In conclusion, there was no difference in incidence of in-stent thrombus between the 2 groups (14% vs 0%; p = 0.23). The present study showed almost all BMS struts to be well covered at a 3-month follow-up, suggesting that patients receiving BMS stents may not require dual-antiplatelet therapy >3 months after implantation.     

Impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcomes of patients treated for acute myocardial infarction by primary angioplasty.

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) are currently being used in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). SESs have not been evaluated in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction by primary angioplasty. We report our initial experience with SESs implanted during primary angioplasty. One hundred and three patients were treated within 12 hr after onset of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with primary angioplasty and SES implantation. Those patients were compared to 504 patients treated with bare metal stents (BMSs). Angiographic success (TIMI flow grade 3 and residual stenosis < 50%) was completed in 98% of patients with SESs and no subacute stent thrombosis was reported. In-hospital outcomes were similar in the SES and BMS groups. At 6 months, major cardiac events were less frequent in the SES group than in the BMS group (9% vs. 24%, respectively; P < 0.001), driven by a lesser need for repeat revascularization with SESs (1% vs. 10.3% with BMSs; P = 0.014). Mortality at 6 months was 7% with SESs and 11% with BMSs (P = 0.14). SESs are safe and effective for the treatment of AMI by primary angioplasty. As compared to BMSs, SESs improve long-term outcome after AMI, mainly by reducing the need for repeat revascularization.     

Incomplete neointimal coverage of sirolimus-eluting stents: angioscopic findings.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to use angioscopy to investigate the amount of neointimal coverage after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation. BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-eluting stents reduce intimal hyperplasia. METHODS: We used angioscopy to evaluate 37 consecutive stented coronary artery lesions (15 SES and 22 bare-metal stents [BMS]) in 25 patients (18 men, 7 women) at 3 to 6 months after stent implantation. Angioscopic evaluation focused on: 1) neointimal coverage of stent struts, and 2) the existence of thrombi. The degree of neointimal coverage was classified as grade 0 when there was no neointimal coverage (similar to immediately after the implantation); grade 1 when stent struts bulged into the lumen, but were covered and still translucently visible; grade 2 when stent struts were visible but not clearly seen (not translucent); and grade 3 when stent struts were not visible because they were embedded in the neointima. RESULTS: Thrombi were identified in eight stented segments, tended to be more common with SES (p = 0.14), but were not seen on angiography. Three of the 15 SES (20%) had grade 0 neointimal coverage, and only 2 SES (13.3%) had complete coverage (grades 2/3). In contrast, all 22 BMS showed complete intimal coverage (grades 2/3). Thrombi were more common in stents with incomplete neointimal coverage (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The SES had incomplete neointimal coverage three to six months after implantation, and this was associated with subclinical thrombus formation.     

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.     

Intravascular ultrasound comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare metal stent implantation in diseased saphenous vein grafts (from the RRISC [Reduction of Restenosis In Saphenous Vein Grafts With Cypher Sirolimus-Eluting Stent] trial)

The randomized Reduction of Restenosis In Saphenous Vein Grafts with Cypher Sirolimus-Eluting Stent trial compared angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) versus bare metal stents (BMSs) in saphenous vein grafts (SVG). Using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) performed during 6-month follow-up angiography, we compared the vascular effects of the 2 types of stent on SVGs. Of 75 patients (96 lesions) included, 59 patients underwent IVUS in 61 SVGs; 29 patients received 40 SESs for 34 lesions, and 30 patients received 42 BMSs for 39 lesions. IVUS parameters (diameters, areas, and volumes) were compared in the 2 groups. A specific analysis was performed for overlapping SESs. Median neointimal volume was 1.3 mm(3) (interquartile range 0 to 13.1) in SESs versus 24.5 (7.8 to 39.5) in BMSs (p <0.001). Minimal incomplete stent apposition was detected at only 3 stent edges (2 BMSs, 1 SES) next to ectatic regions of the SVG. Compared with single SESs, overlapping SESs showed significant increases in neointimal reaction, with a neointimal volume of 0.6 mm(3)/mm of stent (0.1 to 1.8) versus 0 (0 to 0.4) in single SESs (p = 0.03), and this phenomenon was mainly localized in overlapping SES segments, where neointimal volume per millimeter of stent was 1.1 mm(3)/mm (0.6 to 4.4) versus 0 (0 to 1.3) in nonoverlapping segments (p = 0.05). In conclusion, SESs effectively inhibit neointimal hyperplasia volume compared with BMSs in diseased vein grafts, without evidence of increased incomplete apposition risk. The neointimal response to overlapping SES layers seems higher than to a single SES layer.     

Impact of sirolimus-eluting stent on the outcome of patients with chronic total occlusions

Several randomized trials have demonstrated that stent implantation after successful recanalization of long-term total occlusions decreases restenosis and reocclusion rates. The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) has recently proved its efficacy to decrease restenosis in selected patients. However, the efficacy of SES implantation in patients who have chronic total occlusions is currently unknown. Therefore, we investigated procedural and 6- and 12-month angiographic outcomes (analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography) and left ventricular function in 60 patients who received SESs and 120 patients who received bare metal stents (BMSs). Minimum luminal diameter did not differ immediately after recanalization (SES group 3.04 +/- 0.50 mm vs BMS group 3.12 +/- 0.48 mm). After 6 months, the SES group still had significantly larger luminal diameters (3.04 +/- 0.44 mm vs 1.94 +/- 0.98 mm) and significantly lower restenosis and reocclusion rates (2% and 0%, respectively) than did the BMS group (32% and 6%, respectively). Late loss was significantly smaller in the SES group than in the BMS group. At follow-up, the SES group had fewer cardiac events, including target lesion revascularization (p <0.001), than did the BMS group. In conclusion, SES implantation after recanalization of chronic total occlusion provides a better clinical outcome with less restenosis and target lesion revascularization after 6 months than does BMSs.     

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.     

Comparison of effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients at high risk for coronary restenosis or clinical adverse events

We evaluated the clinical effect of selective use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) in real-world, high-risk patients. A total of 4,237 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (SES, n = 872, bare metal stents [BMSs], n = 3,365) was enrolled in a prospective regional survey. A prespecified high-risk subset of patients was selected on the basis of clinical and angiographic characteristics. A propensity score analysis was performed to compare patients who received SESs with those who received BMSs. Patients in the SES group more often had diabetes and more frequently had previous myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization, type C lesions, and multivessel procedures. Patients who presented with acute myocardial infarction were treated more often with BMSs. At 9 months, the use of SESs was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.85) and target lesion revascularizations (hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.91). This decrease was more evident in a prespecified high-risk subgroup of patients (major adverse cardiac events, 8.0% SES vs 15.6% BMS, hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.72). We conclude that selective SES use in real-world patients who have high-risk clinical and angiographic characteristics is associated with significant decreases in major adverse cardiac events and repeat revascularizations compared with BMS use.     

Serial angioscopic evaluation of neointimal coverage and incidence of thrombus formation after Paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation: comparison between 6- and 18-month follow-up

Background:

Long‐term serial angioscopic follow‐up data after paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) implantation has not previously been published. The aim of this study is to compare the angioscopic parameters such as neointimal coverage grade and prevalence of red mural thrombus at 6‐ and 18‐month follow‐up after PES implantation.

Hypothesis:

Neointimal formation continues to grow and prevalence of angioscopic thrombus formation becomes low over time after PES implantation.

Methods:

We retrospectively enrolled 17 patients with 19 stents who underwent both 6‐ and 18‐month follow‐up coronary angioscopy after PES implantation. We evaluated the minimum and maximum neointimal coverage grade within 1 stent using coronary angioscopy by classifying neointimal coverage grade into 4 categories. Neointimal coverage grade and incidence of angioscopic red mural thrombus were compared between 6‐ and 18‐month follow‐up groups.

Results:

Minimum neointimal coverage grade at 18 months become lower than that at the 6‐month follow‐up (0.95 ± 0.62 at 6 mo vs 0.58 ± 0.51 at 18 mo, P = 0.035), whereas maximum grade was not significantly different (2.16 ± 0.83 at 6 mo vs 2.37 ± 0.76 at 18 mo, P = 0.248). High incidence of angioscopic red mural thrombus at 6 months was maintained even at 18‐month follow‐up (68% at 6 mo vs 84% at 18 mo, P = 0.224).

Conclusions:

Long‐term serial angioscopic follow‐up demonstrated persistent high incidence of red mural thrombus formation at 18 months after PES implantation. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

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.     

Selective versus exclusive use of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in multivessel coronary artery disease.

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs; Cypher) have demonstrated a significant reduction in restenosis rates when compared to bare metal stents (BMSs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the strategy of exclusive use of two SESs versus the combination of one BMS and one SES for two-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). It was found that the selective use of one SES combined with one BMS in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention that requires more than one stent is safe, feasible, and associated with favorable procedural, 30-day, and 6-month clinical outcomes when compared to the exclusive use of SESs.     

Coronary angioscopic findings 9 months after everolimus-eluting stent implantation compared with sirolimus-eluting stents

ObjectivesWe assessed angioscopic findings after everolimus-eluting stents (EES) implantation, compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).BackgroundCoronary angioscopy (CAS) provides an opportunity to assess neointimal coverage over stent struts, thrombus, and plaque color by direct visualization. CAS is a useful tool for evaluating stent struts after drug-eluting stent implantation. Angioscopic findings after EES implantation have not been reported before.MethodsWe performed CAS in 23 patients who were treated with EES and 41 patients with SES. CAS was performed 8.5 months after stent implantation. We assessed neointimal coverage, thrombus, and plaque color. We classified neointimal coverage in 4 grades: grade 0 = struts were completely exposed; grade 1 = struts were visible with dull light reflexion; grade 2 = there was no light reflexion from slightly visible struts; grade 3 = struts were completely covered.ResultsThere was no significant difference in minimum, maximum, dominant grade of neointimal coverage, and heterogeneity index between EES and SES. Thrombus was less frequently observed in EES than SES (4% vs 29%, p = 0.02). When we divided study patients into acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stable angina pectoris (SAP), there was a tendency toward less thrombus in EES than SES, in both ACS and SAP. Maximum color grade of the plaques was less advanced in EES than SES (p < 0.01). Yellow plaques of grade 2 or 3 were less frequent in EES than SES (35% vs 76%, p < 0.01).ConclusionsThis study suggested that EES were associated with lower risk of thrombus formation than SES.     

Angioscopic Findings after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

In-stent restenosis is the Achilles' heel of standard or bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation, occurring in 10-40% of the patients. Drug-eluting stent (DES) are supposed to inhibit inflammation and neointimal growth and, subsequently, in-stent restenosis. The neointimal proliferation inside the stent is recognized as lumen late loss on angiograms or as an obstruction area (or volume) on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in chronic phase. Coronary angioscopy provides direct visualization of the lumen and is capable of macroscopic pathologic diagnosis of atherosclerotic plaques and intracoronary thrombi. This modality is also able to supply detailed information on stent coverage with neointimal hyperplasia. The neointimal growth inside the stent is evaluated as white neointimal coverage over the stent struts. Angioscopic view inside the DES is quite different from that inside the BMS. In this article, the difference in angioscopic findings between the DES and the BMS is shown.     

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

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

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.     

Safety of sirolimus-eluting stenting and its effect on restenosis in patients with unstable angina pectoris (a SIRIUS substudy)

The SIRIUS study was a double-blinded, randomized trial of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) to evaluate its effect on the rate of restenosis. The present report is a retrospective analysis of short- and long-term outcomes of SESs compared with bare metal stents (BMSs) in a subgroup of patients with unstable angina enrolled in the trial. Of 1,058 patients randomized in SIRIUS, 533 (50.4%) had unstable angina pectoris and 490 had stable angina. In the unstable angina group, patients treated with SESs and BMSs had similar clinical and angiographic characteristics. The stenting procedure was highly successful in the 2 groups (95.9% and 97.4%, respectively) with similar immediate angiographic results and short-term (in-hospital) clinical event rates. At 1-year follow-up, compared with BMSs, patients with unstable angina treated with SESs had significantly lower rates of target lesion revascularization (5.5% vs 22.3%, p <0.0001), target vessel failure (10.9% vs 26.3%, p <0.0001), and major adverse cardiac events (8.4% vs 24.8%, p <0.0001). Stent thrombosis was a rare event, with only 1 patient (0.4%) in each group during the first 30 days. Late thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (0.7%) in the BMS group but in none of the SES group. In conclusion, in the higher risk subgroup of patients with unstable angina, SESs are as safe as BMSs in decreasing restenosis and the need for repeat revascularization. This is reflected by a significant decrease in major adverse cardiac events and target vessel failure. Patients with unstable angina undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who meet the entry criteria of the SIRIUS study should be preferentially treated with SESs.     

Three-year clinical follow-up of the unrestricted use of sirolimus-eluting stents as part of the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) have been shown to decrease restenosis compared with bare metal stents (BMSs). Currently, there are limited data on the long-term efficacy of these devices in a real-world patient population. Furthermore, the potential of a late restenotic phenomenon has not yet been excluded. From April to October 2002, 508 consecutive patients with de novo lesions exclusively treated with SESs were enrolled and compared with 450 patients treated with BMSs in the preceding 6 months (control group). Patients in the SES group more frequently had multivessel disease and type C lesions, received more stents, and had more bifurcation stenting. After 3 years, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (comprising death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) was significantly lower in the SES group compared with the pre-SES group (18.9% vs 24.7%, hazards ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.96, p = 0.026). The 3-year risk of target lesion revascularization was 7.5% in the SES group versus 12.6% in the pre-SES group (hazards ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0.87, p = 0.01). In conclusion, the unrestricted use of SESs is safe and superior to the use of BMSs. The beneficial effects, reported after 1 and 2 years in reducing major adverse cardiac events, persisted with no evidence of a clinical late restenotic "catch-up" phenomenon.     

Comparison of sirolimus‐eluting stent,paclitaxel‐eluting stent,and bare metal stent in the treatment of long coronary lesions

Objective: This study compared the efficacy of the sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), the paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES), and the bare metal stent (BMS) for long coronary lesions. Background: The outcome of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in long coronary lesions remains unclear. Methods: The study involved 527 patients with de novo long coronary lesions (≥24 mm), which were treated with long (≥28 mm) SESs (223 lesions), PESs (194 lesions), or BMSs (201 lesions). Results: Lesions in the SES (36.0 ± 14.9 mm, P < 0.001) and PES (36.3 ± 14.5 mm, P < 0.001) groups were longer than those in the BMS group (32.0 ± 12.3 mm), meaning the two DES groups had longer stented segments than did the BMS group. Six‐month angiographic follow‐up showed the SES (9.3%, P < 0.001) and PES (21.3%, P < 0.001) groups had lower in‐segment restenosis rates than that of the BMS group (42.5%). The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 9 months was higher in the BMS group (26.6%) than that in the SES (13.0%, P < 0.001) and PES (15.7%, P < 0.001) groups. Posthoc analysis of the two DES groups showed that the in‐segment restenosis rate was lower for the SES than that for the PES group (P = 0.002), while the MACE rate was similar. Conclusions: The use of DESs for long coronary lesions appears to be safe and more effective than the use of BMSs in terms of restenosis and adverse clinical events. SES use was associated with lower late luminal loss and a lower angiographic restenosis rate compared with PES use. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus (from the Italian Multicenter Randomized DESSERT Study)

Few studies directly compared drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in diabetic patients. DESSERT was an Italian multicenter randomized trial to show the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) compared with BMSs in de novo lesions of diabetic patients treated with insulin and/or oral antidiabetics for > or =3 months on top of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The primary end point was in-stent late lumen loss, assessed using centralized quantitative coronary angiography at 8-month follow-up. Centrally adjudicated composite major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and target-vessel failure (TVF; death, treated vessel-related acute myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization) at 30 days and 9 and 12 months were secondary end points. Seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to an SES (109 lesions), and 75 (109 lesions), to a BMS. The 2 groups were well balanced for clinical, anatomic, and procedural characteristics. In-stent late lumen loss decreased from 0.96 +/- 0.61 mm for BMSs to 0.14 +/- 0.33 for SESs (p <0.001), and in-segment binary restenosis was 38.8% versus 3.6%, respectively (p <0.001). Twelve-month clinical events were significantly lower in the sirolimus group: MACEs 22.1% versus 40% (p = 0.023), target-lesion revascularization 5.9% versus 30% (p <0.001), and TVF 14.7% versus 34.3% (p = 0.008). At multivariate analysis, stent type was confirmed as an independent predictor of in-segment late loss (p <0.001), binary restenosis (p <0.001), 12-month TVF (p = 0.010), and 12-month MACEs (p = 0.037). In conclusion, the randomized DESSERT showed SESs to be safe and effective in decreasing both angiographic parameters of restenosis and incidence of MACEs compared with BMSs in diabetic patients with de novo 1- or 2-vessel coronary stenoses.