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 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.     

Late giant coronary aneurysm associated with a fracture of sirolimus eluting stent: a case report

A 73-year-old female underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) because of stable angina. An elective PCI for the RCA lesion was first performed with deploying sirolimus eluting stents (SES). Three weeks later, PCI was also provided in the residual LAD lesion. Eight months later, she presented with new angina. CAG revealed an in-stent restenosis in the mid LAD and a large eccentric saccular coronary aneurysm (17 mm x 9 mm) at the proximal RCA. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) showed absence of stent struts around the orifice of aneurysm, which suggested a fracture of SES stent. The entry of coronary aneurysm was finally sealed with a polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent. This report documented a rare case of late giant coronary artery aneurysm associated with a fracture of SES.     

Characterization of plaque prolapse after drug-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients: a three-dimensional volumetric intravascular ultrasound outcome study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research was to evaluate the plaque prolapse (PP) phenomenon after bare-metal (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus using 3-dimensional volumetric intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). BACKGROUND: Plaque prolapse has been observed in up to 22% of patients treated with BMS. Diabetic patients have a larger atherothrombotic burden and may be more prone to have PP. However, the incidence of PP and its clinical impact after DES implantation is unknown. METHODS: Three-dimensional IVUS was performed after intervention and at 9-month follow-up in 168 patients with diabetes (205 lesions) treated with bare BX Velocity stents ((BX Velocity/Sonic, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson) (BMS, n = 65), sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher, Cordis) (SES, n = 69), and paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) (PES, n = 71). Intravascular ultrasound data at the sites of PP were compared with stented segments without PP in each lesion. Outcomes were evaluated at 9- and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: There were 42 sites of PP (BMS = 11, SES = 11, PES = 20, p = NS) in 34 stented segments of 205 (16.6%) lesions. Plaque prolapse was more frequent in the right coronary artery and in chronic total occlusion lesions. Post-procedure PP volume was 1.95 mm3 in BMS, 2.96 mm3 in SES, and 4.53 mm3 in PES. At follow-up, tissue volume increased at PP sites in both BMS and PES, but not after SES. Neointimal proliferation was similar between PP and non-PP sites. Stent thrombosis and restenosis rates were similar between PP and non-PP lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PP after implantation of new generation tubular stents in patients with diabetes remains high. Drug-eluting stent implantation was not associated with increased risk of PP. Plaque prolapse was not associated with stent thrombosis or increased neointimal proliferation.     

Effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of ostial left anterior descending artery stenosis with intravascular ultrasound guidance

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate the clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for ostial left anterior descending (LAD) lesions compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation. BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of SES implantation for ostial LAD lesions is currently unknown. METHODS: Sirolimus-eluting stents were implanted in 68 consecutive patients with ostial LAD stenoses. The control group was composed of 77 patients treated with BMS during the preceding two years. In the SES group, for complete lesion coverage, stent positioning was intentionally extended into the distal left main coronary artery (LMCA) in 23 patients (34%) with intermediate LMCA narrowing. RESULTS: Compared with the BMS group, the SES group had more multivessel involvement, received fewer debulking atherectomies, underwent more direct stenting, had a greater number of stents, and had more segments stented. The procedural success rate was 100% in both groups. The six-month angiographic restenosis rate was significantly lower in the SES group than in the BMS group (5.1% vs. 32.3%, p < 0.001). During the one-year follow-up period, neither death nor myocardial infarction occurred in either group, but target lesion revascularization was less frequent in the SES group than in the BMS group (0% vs. 17%, p < 0.001). In the SES group, there were no restenoses in cases with LMCA coverage, compared with three restenoses (7.9%) in cases with precise stent positioning (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in ostial LAD lesions achieved excellent results regarding restenosis and clinical outcomes compared with BMS implantation. This finding may be associated with reduced neointimal hyperplasia and complete lesion coverage.     

Sirolimus-versus paclitaxel-eluting stents: a comparison of two consecutive series in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND: We compared two consecutive series of patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-five patients with 590 coronary lesions were treated with 274 SES and 379 PES. Patients with symptoms or positive dobutamine stress echocardiography were subjected to repeat coronary angiography. RESULTS: During a follow-up of 13.3 +/- 5.7 months, the incidence rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 4.1%, including, 1 death, 4 Q-wave myocardial infarctions, 2 late angiographic stent thromboses, 3 subacute stent thromboses, and 11 target vessel revascularizations (TVR), and was not significantly different between SES (n = 5) and PES (n = 7).Stent overlapping was found to be an independent predictor of both MACE (odds ratio = 0.078, P = 0.02) and TVR (odds ratio = 0.077, P = 0.02). Follow-up symptoms- or ischemia-driven angiography was performed in 45 patients. Only vessel size was a predictor of stent restenosis (P = 0.02), independent of stent type. Late loss was independently predicted by postdilatation of stent (beta =-0.24, P = 0.03), but not by type of stent (P = 0.14) or other parameters. Edge restenosis was seen in 8 patients subjected to lesion predilatation. The restenosis pattern after SES implantation was focal, but diffuse (n = 1) or proliferative (n = 1) restenosis, and in-stent aneurysm formation (n = 1) was also seen with PES. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a trend for a higher incidence of MACE with PES, no significant differences between the two stent types were detected. Diffuse restenosis was seen only with PES, and edge restenosis only in lesions with balloon predilatation before stent implantation. Stent overlapping was an independent predictor of both TVR and MACE.     

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.     

The Stenting Coronary Arteries in Non-stress/benestent Disease (SCANDSTENT) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the SCANDSTENT study was to evaluate the use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in complex coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: The use of SES improves angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in simple coronary artery lesions, but there is limited evidence of their safety and efficacy when implanted in complex lesions. METHODS: We randomly assigned 322 patients with symptomatic complex coronary artery disease to receive either SES or BMS. The lesions were occluded (36%), bifurcational (34%), ostial (22%), or angulated (8%) in morphology. The primary end point was the difference in minimal lumen diameter six months after stent implantation. RESULTS: The patients were well matched in terms of demographic and angiographic baseline characteristics; 18% had diabetes. The reference vessel diameter was 2.86 mm in mean, and the lesion length 18.0 mm. At follow-up, patients who received SES had a minimal lumen diameter of 2.48 mm compared with 1.65 mm in those who received BMS (p < 0.001), a diameter stenosis of 19.3% versus 43.8% (p < 0.001), and 2.0% versus 31.9% developed restenosis (p < 0.001). The rate of major adverse cardiac events was 4.3% with SES versus 29.3% with BMS (p < 0.001), and stent thrombosis was observed in 0.6% in the SES group versus 3.1% in the BMS group (p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SES markedly reduced restenosis and the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events in patients with complex coronary artery lesions without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis.     

光学相干断层成像在冠心病介入治疗中的应用价值

目的应用光学相干断层成像（OCT）技术评价冠状动脉内粥样硬化斑块、血管对置入支架后即刻和中远期的反应。方法20例冠心病患者,有22支血管在完成冠状动脉造影或介入治疗后进行OCT成像。同时获取23个支架OCT成像,在23个支架中有15个为支架术后4～35个月随访,其中7个为雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架,8个为金属裸支架,另外8个为支架置放后即刻成像。结果入选的20例患者均成功进行OCT检查,并获取22支血管和23个支架满意的图像。通过OCT成像清晰地显示8处纤维斑块、3处钙化斑块、9处富含脂质斑块、2处血栓形成、斑块破裂3处及血管壁上夹层、粥样硬化斑块微小裂口和夹层等。7个置入雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架后OCT随访,均未发现有明显再狭窄,支架表面有少量内膜覆盖,部分支架表面没有内膜覆盖,其中1个支架血管出现瘤样扩张、支架与血管壁分离、支架表面没有内膜覆盖,有1个支架没有充分扩张。8个金属裸支架后用OCT随访发现,所有置入金属裸支架后支架表面内膜增殖明显,其中有3个支架因为内膜过度增殖而出现再狭窄,并再次接受介入治疗。8个支架术后即刻OCT检查显示,与血管贴壁均良好、支架扩张充分有3个支架,4个支架充分扩张,但可见到斑块裂片通过支架网眼突入管腔,1个支架支撑杆分布不均,可见支架与血管壁分离,在8个支架中有2个为支架内套叠支架。结论OCT成像技术可清晰显示各种冠状动脉粥样斑块情况,并可用于评价冠状动脉介入治疗的效果。     

Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Chronic Renal Insufficiency

Background: Chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) is associated with an increased incidence of restenosis and stent thrombosis. Drug-eluting stents (DES), when compared to bare metal stents (BMS), reduce the incidence of restenosis in these patients. This study aimed to examine whether there are differences in clinical outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with CRI who are subjected to coronary intervention.
Methods: A cohort of 570 patients with CRI who underwent intervention with DES (346 with SES and 224 with PES) were followed clinically up to 1 year and the clinical events were recorded and compared between groups.
Results: Baseline and procedural characteristics were similar, with a slightly higher number of diseased vessels in the SES group as compared to the PES group (2.3 ± 0.9 vs 2.1 ± 0.9, P = 0.06). The overall rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis were similar. The PES group had lower revascularization rates when compared to the SES group. After covariate adjustment, however, there was no difference seen in target vessel revascularization between stent types (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.3 [0.8–6.2], P = 0.110). The strongest predictor of death and MACE at 1 year was the number of diseased vessels.
Conclusions: Patients with CRI who undergo PCI with either SES or PES have similar repeat revascularization rates and acceptable stent thrombosis rates, although they continue to have high MACE and death rates. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:33–39)     

Initial and mid-term effects of > or = 30 mm long sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diffuse long coronary lesions: comparison with bare metal stents

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) can reduce restenosis and reintervention compared with bare metal stents (BMS). However, the safety and efficacy of SES for diffuse long lesions remain unknown. This study compared the efficacy of SES and BMS using the initial and mid-term outcomes of 124 patients with 130 long coronary lesions (SES lengths > or = 30 mm) compared to 141 patients with 146 lesions treated with BMS. RESULTS: Quantitative coronary arteriography parameters and initial success rate were not significantly different between the two groups. Occurrence of stent thrombosis was not different between the groups (1 case, 0.7% in group SES vs 0 case, 0% in group BMS). Restenosis and major adverse cardiac event rates at 6 months were lower in the SES group than in the BMS group (3.1% vs 34.2%, p < 0.0001, 3.8% vs 31.5%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Initial effects of sirolimus-eluting stents for diffuse long lesions are as useful and as safe as BMS. The mid-term outcomes for SES are superior due to the lower rates of both restenosis and major adverse cardiac event.     

抗CD34抗体优化雷帕霉素洗脱支架疗效的实验研究

目的 评价抗CD34抗体对雷帕霉素洗脱支架早期再内皮化以及远期抗再狭窄的影响.方法 将裸金属支架(BMS)、雷帕霉素洗脱支架(SES)和抗CD34抗体与雷帕霉素洗脱联合支架(ASES)随机置入到22头中华小型猪的冠状动脉内(共置入15枚BMS、17枚SES和16枚ASES).10头中华小型猪在置入支架(共置入6枚BMS、7枚SES和7枚ASES)后2周,另外12头中华小型猪在置入支架(共置入9枚BMS、10枚SES和9枚ASES)后3个月,进行冠状动脉造影及冠状动脉内光学相干断层成像( OCT)检查,并在处死动物后对支架段冠状动脉进行病理组织学检查及扫描电镜观察.结果 (1)支架术后2周,冠状动脉造影、OCT图像及支架段冠状动脉的病理组织学的观察均未发现支架内血栓及小的附壁血栓.对OCT图像的分析显示,ASES新生内膜覆盖率显著高于SES[ (55.56±35.27)％比(41.82±23.28)％,P＜0.05];ASES平均内膜覆盖厚度不但显著高于SES[(89.0±5.0)μm比(32.0±4.9) μm,P＜0.01],而且显著高于BMS[( 89.0±5.0) μ,m比(44.0±7.2)μm,P＜0.01].病理组织学观察及扫描电镜观察显示,ASES和BMS新生内膜覆盖水平及质量均优于SES.(2)支架术后3个月,定量冠状动脉造影显示ASES晚期支架内管腔丢失显著低于BMS [(0.18±0.06)mm比(0.35±0.06)mm,P＜0.05];对OCT图像的分析显示,ASES和SES新生内膜增生百分比均显著低于BMS[ (34.75±2.64)％和(35.63±2.07)％比(48.28±3.25)％,均P＜0.01];组织病理学分析显示,ASES和SES面积再狭窄百分比均显著低于BMS组[(28.65±5.64)％和(29.33±6.07)％比(46.18±8.25)％,均P＜0.05].结论 将抗CD34抗体联合应用到雷帕霉素洗脱支架上能够显著抵消后者在支架术后2周对再内皮化的抑制作用,同时没有削弱雷帕霉素洗脱支架术后3个月的抗再狭窄效能.     

Outcome of percutaneous hybrid coronary revascularization: bare metal stents jeopardize the benefit of sirolimus-eluting stents in the real world

BACKGROUND: In an effort to contain procedural costs while limiting the risk of in-stent restenosis, hybrid percutaneous revascularization (ie, stenting with at least one sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] and at least one bare metal stent [BMS] in the same patient) is felt to be a cost-effective alternative to exclusive SES use. OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcome of hybrid percutaneous revascularization for the treatment of patients with multiple coronary artery lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-six patients (42 men; mean age [+/- SEM] 64+/-2) underwent hybrid stenting (average of 1.2 SES/patient and 1.3 BMS/patient). SES were used to treat lesions at higher restenotic potential, including longer lesions, smaller target vessels and bifurcation lesions (mean stent length [+/- SEM] was 21.1+/-1.2 mm for SES and 16.0+/-0.6 mm for BMS; stent diameter mean [+/- SEM] was 2.9+/-0.0 mm for SES and 3.1+/-0.1 mm for BMS; bifurcation lesions were 43% for SES and 7% for BMS; all P<0.01). At nine months of clinical follow-up, no death or myocardial infarction was reported. Twenty-one patients underwent clinically driven repeat coronary angiography at a mean (+/- SEM) of 8+/-1 of months (range two to 12 months) follow-up. Target lesion revascularization procedures were recorded in six patients (11%) for nine lesions (6%). Of these lesions, seven were categorized after blinded analysis as due to in-BMS restenosis and two to in-SES restenosis (P=0.01); three patients (5.4%) underwent reangioplasty for de novo lesions. There was one case of acute in-SES thrombosis. SES showed significantly less neointimal hyperplasia (late lumen loss was 0.4+/-0.1 mm for SES and 1.3+/-0.1 mm for BMS; loss index was 0.15+/-0.05 for SES and 0.48+/-0.05 for BMS; all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SES resulted in less neointimal hyperplasia even when used to treat lesions at higher risk for restenosis based on angiographic characteristics. BMS implantation significantly limits this beneficial effect, compromising the outcome of hybrid percutaneous coronary revascularization.     

Efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in hemodialysis patients

Hemodialysis patients were recognized as a high-risk group for restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of the bare-metal stent. Recently, sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have reduced restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR); however, it has been reported that their efficacy in hemodialysis patients is limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) improved angiographic outcomes of hemodialysis patients compared with SES. This study is a retrospective cohort study. We analyzed 54 hemodialysis patients with 87 lesions implanted with PES from February 2007 to September 2008, and 49 hemodialysis patients with 68 lesions implanted with SES from August 2004 to January 2007. Angiographic follow-up after 8-10?months was obtained for 59 lesions (67.8%) in the PES group and 43 lesions (63.2%) in the SES group. At baseline, the PES patients had more peripheral artery disease compared with the SES group (66.7 vs. 34.7%; p?=?0.0012). There were no significant differences in the angiographic characteristics or procedural index. The binary restenosis rate was lower in lesions implanted with PES than in those with SES (13.6 vs. 39.5%; p?=?0.034). Accordingly, the TLR rate was lower in lesions implanted with PES than with SES (9.3 vs. 26.5%; p?=?0.041). Our results suggest that PES is more effective than SES in reducing restenosis and TLR in hemodialysis patients.     

Two-Year Follow-up of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction

It has been shown that drug-eluting stents (DESs) significantly reduce restenosis rate when compared with bare-metal stents in a broad range of patients with coronary artery disease. However, current data are limited about the efficacy of different DESs in treatment of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. We retrospectively examined 127 STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. PES group consisted of 79 patients and SES group consisted of 48 patients. Patients were analyzed for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis (ST). The mean follow-up period was 2 years. The mean age was 53 ± 11 years in the SES group and 59 ± 11 years in the PES group (p = 0.03). Baseline and procedural characteristics were similar in the two groups except stent lengths, which was longer in the SES group. Two-year MACE rates were 8.3% in the SES group and 16.4% in the PES group (p = 0.28). Rates for ST for SES and PES groups were as follows: early ST was 2.08 versus 2.53%; late ST was 2.08 versus 2.53%; and very late ST was 2.08 versus 2.53% (p > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in MACE and ST rates between the SES and PES groups in the 2-year follow-up period. High ST rates detected in our study need to be clarified with future prospective and randomized clinical trials.     

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 the effectiveness of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for small coronary artery lesions.

BACKGROUND: The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) reduce restenosis in small coronary artery lesions. However, it is not clear which of these stents is superior in terms of clinical outcomes. METHODS: The authors retrospectively examined 197 patients with 245 de novo small coronary artery lesions (相似文献   

The efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents prevent in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention, and differences between sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) may exist in the rates of target lesion revascularization, death, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of SES and PES with the efficacy of bare-metal stents for de novo coronary lesions in patients with stable or unstable angina. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE and other electronic databases and conference proceedings was conducted. The efficacy of SES, PES with a polymer carrier (PPOL) and PES without a polymer carrier (PNPOL) was compared using random-effects models. RESULTS: Ten trials comprising 5041 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There was an absolute decrease in target lesion revascularization of 17% (95% CI 14% to 20%), 9% (95% CI 6% to 11%) and 3% (95% CI 0% to 6%) with SES, PPOL and PNPOL, respectively, with significant differences between SES and PPOL and between PPOL and PNPOL (P < 0.01 for both comparisons). However, sensitivity analysis using the OR of target lesion revascularization showed no difference between SES (OR 0.18 [95% CI 0.12 to 0.26]) and PPOL (OR 0.25 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.37]) (P = 0.26). There were no differences in the incidence of death, myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis, although the small number of events limited the power of these analyses. CONCLUSIONS: SES show a greater absolute reduction in target lesion revascularization than do PES, likely due to differences in the bare-metal stents used for comparison in the trials. Head-to-head comparisons are needed to directly address the differential efficacy of SES and PES.     

Sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in comparison with balloon angioplasty for treatment of in-stent restenosis.

This study evaluated the acute and follow-up effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and nonpolymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in comparison will balloon angioplasty for treatment of complex in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions. Drug-eluting stents have been demonstrated to be highly effective for treatment of de novo lesions. The use of drug-eluting stents for treatment of complex ISR is less well defined. Eighty one lesions with in-stent restenosis (lesion length < 30 mm in a native coronary artery) were treated with either PTCA alone (n = 26 lesions in 25 patients), PES (n = 27 lesions in 24 patients; Achieve, Cook; 3,1 mug paclitaxel/mm(2) nonpolymer-based coating), SES (n = 28 lesions in 28 patients; Cypher, Cordis; 140 mug sirolimus/cm(2) metal surface area). Nine-month MACE rates were 32%, 8%, and 14% (all due to repeated revascularization procedures, except one death in the SES group) in the PTCA, PES, and SES group, respectively. Postintervention minimal lumen diameter in stent was significantly greater in the SES and the PES group in comparison with the PTCA group (2.37 +/- 0.26, 2.54 +/- 0.42, 1.78 +/- 0.23 mm; P < 0.001). At 6-month angiographic follow-up, late loss in stent was 0.77 +/- 0.45, 0.43 +/- 0.53, and 0.29 +/- 0.52 mm for the PTCA, PES, and SES group, respectively (P = 0.005). In-lesion restenosis rate was 61% for the PTCA group, 20% for the PES group, and 13% for the SES group (P = 0.042). The implantation of SES as well as nonpolymer PES proved to be effective for treatment of ISR. The combination of improved acute gain and reduced late loss results in a significantly improved angiographic follow-up result in comparison with PTCA.     

中国冠心病患者接受不同支架治疗预后的荟萃分析

目的比较中国冠心病患者置入药物洗脱支架(DES)和裸支架(BMS)或西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)和紫杉醇洗脱支架(PES)之间,临床预后的差别。方法检索数据库,纳入随访时间≥6个月的、比较DES和BMS或SES和PES的临床研究。用STATA 10.0作荟萃分析,比较不同类型支架的临床预后,包括主要心血管不良事件(MACE)、靶病变血运重建(TLR)、靶血管血运重建(TVR)、支架内血栓形成和心肌梗死的发生情况。结果共纳入文献11篇(3780例),随访时间从6个月至3年。与BMS相比,DES可减少MACE(OR=0.471,95%CI0.336～0.662,P<0.001)、减少TVR(OR=0.250,95% CI0.148～0.422,P<0.001),但支架内血栓形成在两组间差异无统计学意义。而SES与PES相比,在MACE、TLR、TVR、支架内血栓、心肌梗死方面差异均无统计学意义。结论药物洗脱支架有效性、安全性高,药物支架中,西罗莫司支架和紫杉醇支架差异无统计学意义。