Lipoprotein(a), apolipoprotein(a) polymorphism and restenosis after intracoronary stent placement in Type 2 diabetic patients

The relationship between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and restenosis after intracoronary stent implantation has never been analysed in diabetic patients. The aim of the present prospective study was to evaluate whether Lp(a) levels and apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] phenotypes are predictors of restenosis after elective stent implantation in Type 2 diabetic patients with de novo lesions of coronary arteries. We recruited 102 Type 2 diabetic patients with a new lesion successfully treated with elective placement of one or two Palmaz-Schatz stents. Follow-up angiography was scheduled at 6 months or earlier if clinically indicated. Seven patients were lost to the follow up. Among 95 patients enrolled, restenosis was present in 37 (38.9%) and absent in 58 (61.1%). The restenosis group showed Lp(a) levels higher than the nonrestenosis group (25.1+/-14.4 vs. 21.3+/-14.6 mg/dl), but the difference was not significant. The restenosis group had a percentage of subjects with at least one apo(a) isoform of low molecular weight (MW) significantly greater than the nonrestenosis group (75.7% vs. 55.1%; P<.05). A multiple logistic regression analysis showed that presence of multivessel disease (risk relative [RR]: 5.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-28.15; P<.05) was the only predictor of restenosis after stent placement in diabetic patients. Lp(a) and apo(a) polymorphisms did not enter the model as predictive variables. Our study shows that the presence of multivessel disease is a predictor of restenosis after intracoronary stent implantation in diabetic patients. On the contrary, Lp(a) and apo(a) polymorphisms do not appear to be reliable markers of restenosis in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.     

The effect of paclitaxel-eluting stents on restenosis]

OBJECTIVE: In our study we aimed to investigate the effects of paclitaxel-eluting stent on restenosis. METHODS: Sixteen porcine were randomly assigned to two groups (n=8 per group): control group animals received conventional stent implantation and study group animals -paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation. Both groups were treated with 300 mg acetylsalicylic acid and 75 mg clopidogrel daily. The degree of neointimal proliferation and effect of drug-eluting stent on restenosis were evaluated 6 weeks after by angiography and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). RESULTS: Angiographic in-stent restenosis was lower in paclitaxel-eluting stent group (12.50 +/- 7.07% versus 41.25 +/- 28.50%, p=0.001). The IVUS data demonstrated that paclitaxel group animals had larger minimal lumen area (8.76 +/- 1.09 mm2 versus 6.23 +/- 3.10 mm2, p=0.028), smaller mean neointimal proliferation area (1.03 +/- 0.75 mm2 versus 3.55 +/- 2.86 mm2, p=0.01) and mean percent stenosis (10.71 +/- 8.10% versus 36.85 +/- 30.93%, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that drug-eluting stents may also have a preventive effect for the in-stent restenosis.     

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.     

药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗弥漫病变的比较研究

目的比较冠心病患者弥漫病变采用药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗的近期和远期预后,分析影响这类病变介入治疗预后的危险因素。方法研究对象为我院2004年4月至2005年8月接受置入单个长度>25.0mm支架治疗并且进行冠状动脉造影随访的205例患者,排除支架置入失败及支架置入位置不理想者。分为置入药物洗脱支架(DES)组(n=128)和置入金属裸支架(BMS)组(n=77)。所有的患者术后均接受阿司匹林300mg、氯吡格雷75mg等规范药物治疗。手术成功判定标准为至少用相互垂直的两个投照体位行冠状动脉造影,肉眼判定残余狭窄<20%和前向血流TIMI3级。再狭窄判定标准以复查冠状动脉造影定量分析支架内或支架邻近血管管腔直径狭窄程度≥50%。患者在支架术后6个月左右接受冠状动脉造影随访。结果共205例患者(男性181例,女性24例)227个靶病变置入382枚支架完成造影随访。其中C型病变占总数的93.8%,B2型病变为6.2%。双支或双支以上血管病变的患者比例达到86.8%。平均术前参考血管直径(2.88±0.43)mm。平均每个病变支架长度(40.09±12.94)mm,54.2%的病变接受了重叠置入支架。比较置入DES组和置入BMS组,两组的患者基本条件差异无统计学意义,在病变基本条件方面,DES组术前参考血管直径明显小于BMS组[(2.80±0.37)mm比(3.10±0.48)mm,P=0.005]。6个月随访结果显示再狭窄率DES组(15.4%)小于BMS组(48.4%),P<0.001。晚期支架内腔径丢失BMS组明显大于DES组[(0.94±0.76)mm比(0.39±0.53)mm,P<0.001]。靶病变血管重建率DES要明显好于BMS(11.6%比38.5%,P<0.001)。支架内再狭窄在置入DES组的局限性再狭窄比例大于置入BMS组(33.3%比18.2%,P=0.029)。对影响复杂弥漫病变支架再狭窄因素的多元logistic回归分析发现,采用支架重叠置入(OR=2.82,P=0.017)和支架类型(OR=5.71,P<0.001)是对复杂弥漫病变支架内再狭窄影响最大的危险因素。结论我们的研究发现对于复杂弥漫病变的治疗,药物洗脱支架有着良好的治疗效果,较金属裸支架能明显减低再狭窄率。对于弥漫病变,我们应该使用长支架,尽可能减少支架重叠置入的数量。     

The relationship between preprocedural platelet size and subsequent in-stent restenosis

OBJECTIVE: Elevated mean platelet volume predicts restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty but its effect on the development of in-stent restenosis is not known. We assessed the effect of mean platelet volume measured before coronary stent implantation for stable angina pectoris on subsequent development of in-stent restenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analysed the data of 60 patients who had stent implantation on one native coronary artery for stable angina pectoris and control angiographies for clinically suspected restenosis within 6 months. Mean platelet volume was measured by auto analyzer one day before stent implantation. Clinical and demographic data and laboratory results were obtained from the hospital charts of the patients. In-stent restenosis was evaluated visually from control angiograms. Angiographic in-stent restenosis was present in 35 (58%) of 60 patients and 25 (42%) patients had no restenosis. Mean platelet volume in the in-stent restenosis group was 8.28 +/- 0.71 fl compared to 7.63 +/- 0.74 fl in the no-restenosis group (p = 0.001). There was a positive correlation between preprocedural mean platelet volume and development of in-stent restenosis (r = 0.44; p < 0.001). A mean platelet volume value of > or = 8.4 fl was associated with an odds ratio of 16.0 for development of in-stent restenosis, with high specificity and positive predictivity but poor sensitivity and negative predictivity (96%, 93%, 40% and 53%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Mean platelet volume measured before stent implantation is correlated with subsequent development of in-stent restenosis. If preprocedural mean platelet volume is greater than 8.4 fl, in-stent restenosis is more probable to occur.     

Usefulness of serum lipoprotein (a) as a predictor of restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.

Serum lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) has been associated with coronary artery atherosclerosis. Its association with restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) has not been previously studied. Serum levels of Lp(a), in addition to other lipoproteins, and their components using standard assays, were determined in subjects undergoing cardiac catheterization within 10 months after PTCA. Clinical (e.g., sex, diabetes, angina class) and angiographic (e.g., PTCA percent diameter reduction) factors were not different between the group without (diameter reduction less than 50%; group A) and the group with (diameter reduction greater than or equal to 50%; Group B) restenosis. Total cholesterol, triglycerides, high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein A-I, apolipoprotein B and Lp(a) were compared. Univariate predictors of restenosis were serum triglycerides (2.50 +/- 1.07 mmol/liter for group A vs 1.72 +/- 0.79 +/- mmol/litre for group B, p = 0.008), and Lp(a) (median: 7.0 mg/dl [range 0 to 44] for group A vs 19 mg/dl [range 1 to 120] for group B; p = 0.006). Stepwise logistic regression revealed the only significant independent predictor of restenosis to be serum Lp(a) (p = 0.018). Each quintile of Lp(a) was associated with a progressively higher risk of restenosis, with the highest quintile (40 to 120 mg/dl) having an odds ratio of 11 (95% confidence interval 9 to 13) compared with the lowest quintile (0 to 3.9 mg/dl) (p = 0.033). A serum Lp(a) of greater than 19 mg/dl was associated with an odds ratio of 5.9 (95% confidence interval 4.6 to 7.2) (restenosis rates of 58% in the group with 0 to 19 mg/dl and 89% in the group with 19 to 120 mg/dl; p = 0.006).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Prediction of in-stent restenosis by measurement of fractional flow reserve and the influence of diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES: This study tried to predict in-stent restenosis by the measurement of fractional flow reserve and to evaluate the effect of diabetes mellitus control on the relationship between in-stent restenosis and fractional flow reserve. METHODS: Fractional flow reserve was measured in 62 patients (mean age 61 +/- 9 years, 32 with angina pectoris and 30 with myocardial infarction) after stent implantation. The patients were divided into three groups according to the value of HbA1c and fasting blood sugar (FBS): Group P (HbA1c > or = 6.5% or FBS > or = 126 mg/dl, n = 15), Group G (6.5% > HbA1c > or = 5.8% or 126 > FBS > or = 100 mg/dl, n = 12), and Group N (HbA1c < 5.8% and FBS < 100 mg/dl, n = 35). The relationship between fractional flow reserve at the end point of stent implantation and target lesion revascularization (TLR) was evaluated. RESULTS: In all patients, fractional flow reserve was 0.89 +/- 0.17 and percentage diameter stenosis was 17.6 +/- 11.6% after stent implantation. The TLR rate was 21%. Fractional flow reserve was significantly lower in patients with TLR (0.85 +/- 0.08 vs 0.91 +/- 0.06, p < 0.01). Fractional flow reserve was significantly lower in patients with TLR in Groups N and G (Group N: 0.85 +/- 0.04 vs 0.91 +/- 0.06, p < 0.05, Group G: 0.77 +/- 0.06 vs 0.91 +/- 0.05, p < 0.01). Fractional flow reserve showed no significant difference between patients with TLR and without TLR in Group P (0.85 +/- 0.10 vs 0.87 +/- 0.08, p = NS). In patients with optimal results (fractional flow reserve > or = 0.90), TLR rate was 60% in Group P, 0% in Group G and 0% in Group N. CONCLUSIONS: Fractional flow reserve after stent implantation is useful for the prediction of TLR in patients without diabetes mellitus. However, diabetic control in patients with diabetes mellitus might be attributable to TLR rather than fractional flow reserve.     

Elevated preprocedural high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels are associated with neointimal hyperplasia and restenosis development after successful coronary artery stenting.

BACKGROUND: Recent data indicate that an elevated serum level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) predicts the risk of recurrent coronary events, and that statin therapy decreases the risk of coronary events. This study assessed the relationship between the pre-procedural hs-CRP level and in-stent neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) after stenting and the effects of statins on the relationship between restenosis after stenting and the serum hs-CRP levels of patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 100 patients who underwent stent implantation for angiographically significant stenosis. Patients were divided into a normal C-reactive protein (CRP) group (<0.5 mg/dl, n=59) and elevated CRP group (>or=0.5 mg/dl, n=41). All patients underwent angiographic and intravascular ultrasound follow-up at 6 months. The baseline CRP level was 0.29+/-0.08 mg/dl in the normal CRP group and 2.90+/-2.31 mg/dl in the elevated CRP group. The NIH cross-sectional area (CSA) in the minimal lumen CSA at follow-up was significantly larger in the elevated CRP group compared with the normal CRP group (1.9+/-1.3 mm2 vs 3.0+/-1.5 mm2, p=0.001). A significant positive correlation was found between pre-interventional CRP level and NIH area (r=0.52, p<0.001). In patients with normal CRP, an association between statin therapy and restenosis was not observed. However, when the analysis was confined to patients with elevated CRP, statin therapy significantly reduced the restenosis rate (20% vs 37.5%, p=0.031). In the normal CRP group, the intra-stent neointimal area at 6 months was not different between the non-statin and statin groups (2.2+/-1.4 mm2 vs 1.8+/-1.1 mm2). However, in the elevated CRP group, statin therapy significantly decreased the neointimal area at 6-month follow-up (3.6+/-1.7 mm2 vs 2.4+/-1.3 mm2, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Measuring the pre-interventional hs-CRP level may help predict the development of restenosis after stenting and statin therapy will significantly reduce the restenosis rate in patients with an elevated hs-CRP.     

Predictors of restenosis after implantation of 2.5 mm stents in small coronary arteries.

BACKGROUND: The results of stent implantation for small coronary disease have been inconclusive. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the factors in predicting the risk of angiographic restenosis after 2.5-mm stent implantation for small coronary arteries. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study group comprised 134 consecutive patients who had a reference small coronary artery with diameter from 1.8 mm to 2.5 mm on quantitative coronary angiography and who had been successfully treated by stent implantation with a 2.5-mm stent. Of the 134 patients, 55 had angiographic restenosis (41%). The rate of target lesion revascularization was 32%. Diabetes mellitus, acute coronary syndrome, lesion length, bifurcation lesion, lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), stent strut, stent/artery ratio, and stent length were identified as predictors of restenosis by univariate analysis. Subsequent multivariate analysis revealed that lower LVEF (odds ratio (OR) 3.37, p=0.01), bifurcation lesion (OR 2.47, p=0.04), thicker stent strut (OR 2.30, p=0.04), and longer stent length (OR 1.05, p=0.02) were significant predictors of restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Two pre-interventional factors (reduced left ventricular function and bifurcated lesion) and 2 procedure-related factors (thickness of stent strut and total stent length) were identified as predictors of restenosis. These factors should be taken into account when deciding on the percutaneous coronary intervention strategy for small coronary artery disease.     

Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: comparison with bare metal stent implantation

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and bare metal stent (BMS) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of SES implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis have not been ascertained. METHODS: Elective SES implantation for de novo unprotected LMCA stenosis was performed in 102 consecutive patients with preserved left ventricular function from March 2003 to March 2004. Data from this group were compared to those from 121 patients treated with BMS during the preceding two years. RESULTS: Compared to the BMS group, the SES group received more direct stenting, had fewer debulking atherectomies, had a greater number of stents, had more segments stented, and underwent more bifurcation stenting. The procedural success rate was 100% for both groups. There were no incidents of death, stent thrombosis, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), or emergent bypass surgery during hospitalization in either group. Despite less acute gain (2.06 +/- 0.56 mm vs. 2.73 +/- 0.73 mm, p < 0.001) in the SES group, SES patients showed a lower late lumen loss (0.05 +/- 0.57 mm vs. 1.27 +/- 0.90 mm, p < 0.001) and a lower six-month angiographic restenosis rate (7.0% vs. 30.3%, p < 0.001) versus the BMS group. At 12 months, the rate of freedom from death, MI, and target lesion revascularization was 98.0 +/- 1.4% in the SES group and 81.4 +/- 3.7% in the BMS group (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis appears safe with regard to acute and midterm complications and is more effective in preventing restenosis compared to BMS implantation.     

Thiazolidinedione treatment attenuates diffuse neointimal hyperplasia in restenotic lesions after coronary stent implantation in type 2 diabetic patients: an intravascular ultrasound study

OBJECTIVES: Thiazolidinedione treatment reduces neointimal tissue proliferation after coronary stent implantation in diabetic patients. However, in-stent restenosis still persists in patients treated with thiazolidinedione. The effect of thiazolidinedione treatment on the pattern of in-stent restenosis remains unclear. This study investigated whether thiazolidinedione treatment attenuates diffuse neointimal hyperplasia in restenotic lesions after coronary stent implantation in diabetic patients. METHODS: Volumetric intravascular ultrasound was performed at 6 months after coronary stent implantation in 76 patients with restenotic lesions who received either conventional anti-diabetic treatment (control group, n = 56) or thiazolidinedione treatment (thiazolidinedione group, n = 20). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in stent volume (99 +/- 32 vs 90 +/- 20 mm3, respectively, p = 0.26) or in minimal lumen area in the stent (1.4 +/- 0.6 vs 1.6 +/- 0.5 mm2, respectively, p = 0.11). However, there were significant reductions in neointimal volume (56 +/- 25 vs 36 +/- 11 mm3, respectively, p < 0.01)and neointimal index (56 +/- 11% vs 41 +/- 8%, respectively, p < 0.01) in the thiazolidinedione group. Coefficient of variation of neointimal tissue accumulation was greater in the thiazolidinedione group (45.5%) than in the control group (25.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular ultrasound study demonstrated that together with reduction of overall neointimal tissue proliferation, thiazolidinedione treatment caused greater point-to-point heterogeneity in the neointimal tissue accumulation in restenotic lesions after coronary stent implantation. This finding strongly suggests that thiazolidinedione treatment attenuates diffuse in-stent restenosis in diabetic patients.     

冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者置入药物洗脱支架的疗效评价

目的 评价冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者冠状动脉病变置入药物洗脱支架后的疗效。方法 选择我院2004年4月至2005年8月连续接受置入药物洗脱支架（DES）或金属裸支架（BMS）治疗并且进行了冠状动脉造影随访的139例的冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者。所有患者在支架术后6个月后接受冠状动脉造影随访。结果共139例患者（男性114例,女性25例）221处病变完成随访。其中C型病变94处（42．5％）,完全闭塞病变42处（19．0％）,平均每个病变支架长度（26．53±14．72）mm,平均参考血管直径（2．80±0．43）mm。两组患者在性别比例和年龄方面差异无统计学意义。两组在冠心病的危险因素如：高血压病、高脂血症、吸烟等方面差异无统计学意义。两组病变的复杂程度基本相当。DES组的参考血管直径比BMS组小[（2．71±0．41）mm比（2．98±0．53）mm,P〈0．001]。6个月后随访,DES组的支架内再狭窄率（10．6％比38．6％,P〈0．001）和病变内晚期腔径丢失[（0．24±0．56）mm比（0．91±0．77）mm,P〈0．001]明显低于BMS组。DES组的靶病变血管重建率显著低于BMS组（8．6％比30．0％,P〈0．001）。DES组有4例晚期支架内血栓。结论 本研究显示药物洗脱支架对于冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者冠状动脉病变的介入治疗有着良好的治疗效果,明显优于金属裸支架。     

Relationship between preheparin lipoprotein lipase mass concentration in serum and bare metal stent restenosis

OBJECTIVES: Insulin resistance or inflammation is known to be related with lipoprotein lipase activity and these factors are also closely associated with the pathogenesis of bare-metal stent restenosis. This study examined the relationship between preheparin lipoprotein lipase protein (preheparin LpL mass) concentration in serum and bare-metal stent restenosis. METHODS: A total of 121 lesions in 112 patients who underwent bare-metal stent implantation using NIR stent or S660/670 stent were examined. Subjects were divided into two groups (N group; patients with normal preheparin LpL mass concentration, n = 50 or L group; patients with low preheparin LpL mass concentration, n = 71) according to the mean levels of preheparin LpL mass concentration (male 39.3 ng/ml, female 50.6 ng/ml). RESULTS: There were no differences in percutaneous coronary intervention or angiographical characteristics. The L group had a significantly higher incidence of restenosis rate and target lesion revascularization than the N group (N group vs L group: 8.0% vs 42.3%, p < 0.0001; 8.0% vs 33.8%, p = 0.0008, respectively). Homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance as a marker of insulin resistance and high sensitive C-reactive protein concentration were significantly higher in the L group than the N group. Multiple regression analysis showed that only low preheparin LpL mass concentration was an independent factor for restenosis (t value = 3.6, p = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Preheparin LpL mass concentration is closely associated with bare-metal stent restenosis and preheparin LpL mass concentration may be an important marker for the selection of bare-metal stent or drug-eluting stent.     

Factors predictive of cardiac events and restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in small coronary arteries.

OBJECTIVES: Predictors of cardiac events and restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in small coronary arteries were evaluated. BACKGROUND: Although SES implantation has markedly reduced the risk of restenosis, small vessel disease remains a major cause of SES failure. METHODS: We prospectively investigated the factors predictive of cardiac events and restenosis in 1,092 consecutive patients who received SES implantation for 1,269 lesions in small coronary arteries (< or = 2.8 mm). Follow-up angiography at 6 months was performed in 751 patients with 889 lesions (follow-up rate 70.3%). RESULTS: Restenosis (diameter stenosis > or = 50%) was angiographically documented in 65 patients with 77 lesions (8.7%): 55 focal (71.4%), 8 diffuse (10.4%), 2 diffuse proliferative (2.6%), and 12 total (15.6%). Lesion length, stent length, reference artery size, and in-stent restenotic lesions were univariate predictors of restenosis. By multivariate analysis, lesion length (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P < 0.001) and in-stent restenotic lesions (OR 3.38; 95% CI 1.80-6.35; P < 0.001) were significant independent predictors of restenosis. During follow-up (23.2 +/- 7.9 months), there were 17 deaths (5 cardiac and 12 noncardiac), 5 nonfatal Q-wave myocardial infarctions, and 42 target lesion revascularizations. The cumulative probability of survival without major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was (96.6 +/- 0.6)% at 1 year and (95.1 +/- 0.7)% at 2 years. In multivariate analysis, lesion length (HR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07; P = 0.004) and in-stent restenotic lesions (HR 3.29; 95% CI 1.58-6.86; P = 0.001) were independently related to MACE. CONCLUSIONS: SES implantation in small coronary arteries is safe and effective, with lesion length having a major impact on restenosis and MACE.     

Predictors of adverse long-term outcome in acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: with special reference to the admission concentration of lipoprotein (a).

The predictive values for long-term outcome in 127 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after successful primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) were prospectively investigated in the present study. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal AMI, and recurrent angina. Follow-up angiography was performed in 120 patients to assess restenosis. The primary endpoint occurred in 21 patients during a follow-up period of 35+/-24 months. These patients had a higher lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentration (p=0.0105) and more prevalence of multivessel disease (p=0.0028) than the other patients. The subjects were divided into 2 groups at the 75th percentile Lp(a) value: group A had an Lp(a) concentration >or=47 mg/dl and group B <47 mg/dl. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a lower cardiac event-free survival rate in group A (p=0.0007) and in patients with multivessel disease (p=0.001). In Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, an Lp(a) level >or=47 mg/dl (relative risk[RR] 5.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-15.0, p=0.0007) and multivessel disease (RR 5.3, 95% CI 2.0-13.7, p=0.0006) were independent predictors of the primary endpoint. An elevated Lp(a) concentration on admission and multivessel disease are significant predictors for long-term adverse outcome in AMI patients treated by primary PTCA.     

Does a carbon ion-implanted surface reduce the restenosis rate of coronary stents?

BACKGROUND: Neointimal hyperplasia and resulting restenosis limit the long-term success of coronary stenting. Heavy metal ions induce an inflammatory and allergic reaction, and result in in-stent restenosis. However, a carbon ion-implanted surface might prevent heavy metal ions from diffusing into surrounding tissue. METHODS: 140 lesions in 140 patients with coronary lesions underwent implantation of carbon-implanted surface stents (Arthos(inert) stent group, n=70) or control stents (Arthos stent group, n=70). The primary end point was the in-stent restenosis and the secondary end point was the value of hs-CRP at 48 h and 6 months after coronary stenting. Clinical and angiographic follow-ups were performed at 6 months. RESULTS: The rate of in-stent restenosis was lower in the Arthos(inert) stent group (15.9%, 10/63) than in the Arthos stent group (20.9%, 13/62), but there were no significant differences between both groups (p=0.56). The value of hs-CRP at 48 h was lower in the Arthos(inert) stent group (13.9+/-13.4 mg/dl) than in the Arthos stent group (24.5+/-26.0 mg/dl) with significant differences (p=0.04). However, the differences between two groups were not statistically significant at 6 months (p=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a standard coronary stent, a carbon ion-implanted stent shows no considerable benefit for the prevention of in-stent restenosis within the range of this study. Despite all the limitations of this study, a positive effect of a carbon ion-implanted stent in reducing inflammatory reaction after coronary revascularization seems likely.     

Long-term outcomes after stenting of bifurcation lesions with the "crush" technique: predictors of an adverse outcome.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate predictors of an adverse outcome after "crush" bifurcation stenting. BACKGROUND: The "crush" technique is a recently introduced strategy with limited data regarding long-term outcomes. METHODS: We identified 231 consecutive patients treated with drug-eluting stent implantation with the "crush" technique for 241 de novo bifurcation lesions. Clinical follow-up was obtained in 99.6%. RESULTS: The in-hospital major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was 5.2%. At 9 months, 10 (4.3%) patients had an event consistent with possible post-procedural stent thrombosis. Survival free of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 90.3%; the only independent predictor of TLR was left main stem (LMS) therapy (odds ratio [OR] 4.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.00 to 12.37, p = 0.001). Survival free of MACE was 83.5% and independent predictors of MACE were LMS therapy (OR 3.79; 95% CI 1.76 to 8.14, p = 0.001) and treatment of patients with multivessel disease (OR 4.21; 95% CI 0.95 to 18.56, p = 0.058). Angiographic follow-up was obtained in 77% of lesions at 8.3 +/- 3.7 months. The mean late loss of the main vessel and side branch were 0.30 +/- 0.64 mm and 0.41 +/- 0.67 mm, respectively, with binary restenosis rates of 9.1% and 25.3%. Kissing balloon post-dilation significantly reduced the side branch late lumen loss (0.24 +/- 0.50 mm vs. 0.58 +/- 0.77 mm, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The crush technique of bifurcation stenting with drug-eluting stents is associated with favorable outcomes for most lesions; however, efficacy appears significantly reduced in LMS bifurcations, and further research is needed before the technique can be routinely recommended in this group. Furthermore, the incidence of possible stent thrombosis is of concern and requires further investigation. Kissing balloon post-dilatation is mandatory to reduce side branch restenosis.     

Restenosis after intracoronary stent placement: can apolipoprotein(a) polymorphism play a role?

BACKGROUND: The relationship between lipoprotein(a) and restenosis after intracoronary stent implantation has been analysed by two specific studies, but the role of apoliprotein(a) polymorphism was not considered. The aim of the present prospective study was to evaluate whether lipoprotein(a) levels and apolipoprotein(a) phenotypes are predictors of restenosis after elective stent implantation in patients with de novo lesions of coronary arteries. METHODS: We recruited 182 patients with a new lesion successfully treated with elective placement of one or two Palmaz-Schatz stents. Follow-up angiography was scheduled at 6 months or earlier if clinically indicated. Nine patients were lost to the follow up. Among 173 patients enrolled, restenosis was present in 52 (30.0%) and absent in 121 (70.0%). RESULTS: Lipoprotein(a) levels were higher in the restenosis than in the nonrestenosis group (29.5+/-17.2 versus 27.4+/-20.2 mg/dl), even if the difference did not attain statistical significance (P=0.067). The restenosis group had a percentage of subjects with at least one apolipoprotein(a) isoform of low molecular weight significantly greater than the nonrestenosis group (82.7 versus 66.9%; P=0.035). A multiple logistic regression analysis showed that multiple stenting (RR: 4.01; CI 95%: 1.65-13.91; P=0.004), presence of diabetes (RR: 3.96; CI 95%: 1.67-9.37; P=0.002) and presence of multivessel disease (RR: 2.71; CI 95%: 1.19-6.16; P=0.017) were predictors of restenosis after stent placement. Lipoprotein(a) and apolipoprotein(a) polymorphism did not enter the model as predictive variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that multiple stenting, diabetes and multivessel disease are powerful predictors of restenosis after intracoronary stent implantation. On the contrary, lipoprotein(a) and apolipoprotein(a) polymorphism do not appear to be reliable markers of restenosis in patients with stent implantation.     

Angiographic results of the first human experience with everolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary lesions (the FUTURE I trial)

The purpose of this study was to report the angiographic findings of the first human evaluation of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for the treatment of noncomplex coronary lesions. Forty-two patients with de novo coronary lesions (2.75 to 4.00 mm vessels; lesion length, <18 mm) were prospectively randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the EES (n = 27) or a metallic stent (n = 15). Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar among both groups. At 6-month follow-up, EES had a lower in-stent late lumen loss (0.10 +/- 0.22 vs 0.85 +/- 0.32 mm, p <0.0001) and in-segment diameter stenoses (20.7 +/- 12.3% vs 37.0 +/- 15.8%, p = 0.002). There was no in-stent restenosis with EES; however, 1 focal distal edge restenosis was present. There was 1 in-stent and 1 in-segment (proximal edge) restenosis in the metallic stent group. There was no stent thrombosis or aneurysm formation at follow-up in either group.     

Immunosuppressive Therapy for the Prevention of Restenosis after Coronary Artery Stent Implantation (IMPRESS Study)

OBJECTIVES: This study tested the effect of oral prednisone on clinical and angiographic restenosis rate after successful stent implantation in patients with persistent elevation of systemic markers of inflammation after the procedure. BACKGROUND: Experimental studies have shown that corticosteroids have the potential to reduce the inflammatory response associated with stent implantation. METHODS: Eighty-three patients undergoing successful stenting with C-reactive protein (CRP) levels >0.5 mg/dl 72 h after the procedure were randomized to receive oral prednisone or placebo for 45 days. The primary clinical end point was 12-month event-free survival rate (defined as freedom from death, from myocardial infarction, and from recurrence of symptoms requiring additional revascularization). The angiographic end points were restenosis rate and late loss at six months. RESULTS: Twelve-month event-free survival rates were 93% and 65% in patients treated with prednisone and placebo, respectively (relative risk [RR] 0.18, 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.05 to 0.61, p = 0.0063). Six-month restenosis rate and late loss were lower in prednisone-treated than in placebo-treated patients (7% vs. 33%, p = 0.001, and 0.39 +/- 0.6 mm vs. 0.85 +/- 0.6 mm, p = 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with persistently high CRP levels after successful coronary artery stent implantation, oral immunosuppressive therapy with prednisone results in a striking reduction of clinical events and angiographic restenosis rate.