Second‐Generation Everolimus‐Eluting Stents Compared to First‐Generation Drug‐Eluting Stents in Patients Treated for Multivessel Disease

Objective

This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) to first‐generation drug‐eluting stents (DES) in multivessel disease (MVD).

Background

Second‐generation EES have demonstrated superiority over first‐generation DES for single‐vessel disease, although the merits of EES in MVD are less established.

Methods

A cohort of 1,285 patients (3,124 lesions) with ≥2 diseased vessels were treated with either first‐generation DES (n = 1,002) or EES (n = 283). The rates of death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the combined incidence of target vessel revascularization, death, and non‐fatal myocardial infarction, were compared at 1 year.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar except for a lower left ventricular ejection fraction and a lower incidence of stable angina pectoris in the first‐generation DES group (P = 0.001 and 0.013, respectively). At 1 year, the MACE rate was lower in the EES group (9.5P% vs. 15.7%; P = 0.01). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that EES use predicted a higher chance of freedom from MACE at 1 year (hazard ratio 0.58 [0.38–0.87]; P = 0.009; 95% confidence interval).

Conclusions

The use of EES in patients with MVD is safe with signals for improved effectiveness compared to first‐generation DES. Randomized trials comparing new‐generation DES to coronary artery bypass grafting surgery are warranted.

     

Risk Factors and Clinical Impacts of Peri‐Stent Contrast Staining After Second‐Generation Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation

Background

Peri‐stent contrast staining (PSS) after sirolimus‐eluting stent implantation is associated with target lesion revascularization (TLR) and very late stent thrombosis. However, the risk factors and clinical sequelae of PSS after second‐generation DES implantation remain unclear.

Methods and Results

This study comprised 2,090 patients with 2,883 lesions treated with second‐generation DES from April 2009 to February 2013. Angiographic findings and clinical outcomes were compared between PSS and non‐PSS groups. Follow‐up angiography was available for 2,411 lesions. PSS was observed in 23 lesions: 4 in biolimus‐eluting stents, 4 in zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES), and 15 in everolimus‐eluting stents (EES). Right coronary artery lesions, chronic total occlusion (CTO), and lesions with severe angulation (>90°) were more frequent in the PSS group compared with the non‐PSS group. Lesions were longer and the cumulative TLR incidence at 3 years was higher in the PSS group than those in the non‐PSS group (27.9 mm vs. 19.4 mm, P < 0.0001; 27.4% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.0002). There was no significant difference in stent thrombosis between the two groups. Multivariable analysis identified CTO [odds ratio (OR) 3.75, 95%CI 1.52–8.88, P = 0.005] as an independent predictor of PSS.

Conclusions

PSS after second‐generation DES implantation was associated with an increased risk of subsequent TLR. CTO was the independent predictor of PSS. (J Interven Cardiol 2016;29:179–187)

     

New‐Generation Drug‐Eluting Stents: Focus on Xience V® Everolimus‐Eluting Stent and Resolute® Zotarolimus‐Eluting Stent

Compared to bare metal stent angioplasty, first‐generation drug‐eluting stents (DES) have markedly reduced the incidence of in‐stent restenosis. However, given the increased concerns over late and very late stent thrombosis, newer‐generation DES were developed. To date, these DES have virtually replaced the use of first‐generation DES worldwide. In this review article, we carefully consider the pre‐clinical and clinical trials that have been performed with currently available, european conformity‐marked and Food and Drug Administration–approved new‐generation Resolute^® and Xience V^® DES. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:278–286)

     

Long‐Term Clinical Follow‐Up after Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation for Bare Metal In‐Stent Restenosis

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the long‐term safety and efficacy of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in the treatment of diffuse bare metal stent (BMS) restenosis as compared to the treatment of de novo coronary lesions in high restenosis risk patient population.

Background

To date limited long‐term data are available about the treatment of BMS restenosis with DES.

Methods

Five hundred and fourteen consecutive patients who underwent DES implantation between January 2003 and October 2006 at our institute were studied: 201 patients received DES for treatment of BMS restenosis and 313 patients received DES for high restenosis risk de novo lesions. Outcomes were calculated using propensity score adjustment. Mean follow‐up length was 45.6 ± 21.5 months.

Results

The rates of acute coronary syndrome, three‐vessel disease, and diabetes were high in both restenosis and de novo groups: 44.8% versus 46.3%, 20.9% versus 28.7%, and 34.3% versus 38.9%, respectively. The incidence of ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) yielded similar results in the restenosis group and de novo group at 4 years (10.4% vs 12.4%, P = 0.490). All‐cause mortality was lower in the restenosis group at 4 years (7.4% vs 14.7%, P = 0.032); however, the incidence of definite and probable stent thrombosis did not differ (1.9% vs 1.6%, P = 0.708) between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

DESs are safe in the treatment of diffuse BMS restenosis and the rate of additional TLR is acceptable as compared to the use of DES in de novo lesions. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:271–277)

     

Comparison of Clinical Results Following the Use of Drug‐Eluting Balloons for a Bare‐Metal Stent and Drug‐Eluting Stent Instent Restenosis

Background

Drug‐eluting balloons (DEBs) have emerged as a potential alternative to current treatments of instent restenosis (ISR). The study aims to investigate the clinical outcomes of a DEB angioplasty to treat bare‐metal stent (BMS) ISR and drug‐eluting stent (DES) ISR at 1‐year clinical follow‐up period.

Methods

Between November 2011 and December 2014, 312 patients were diagnosed with coronary artery ISR at our hospital. A total of 426 coronary ISR lesions were treated with DEBs. The clinical outcomes, including target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, and all‐cause mortality were compared between the BMS‐ISR group and DES‐ISR group. Propensity score matched analysis was used to minimize bias.

Results

The average age of the patients was 64.99 ± 10.35 years, and 76.9% of the patients were male. After multivariate Cox regression analyses about 1‐year recurrent restenosis in DES‐ISR group, only end stage renal disease (ESRD) (P = 0.047) and previous DEB failure (P < 0.001) were identified with significant difference. After propensity score matched analysis, the bias of baseline characteristics showed no significant difference. The DES‐ISR group experienced more myocardial infarctions (2.8% vs 8.3%, P = 0.075), more TLR (8.1% vs 15.4%, P = 0.051), especially at nonostial lesion (5.7% vs 14.9%, P = 0.030) than the BMS‐ISR group. Higher incidence of major cardiac cerebral adverse events happened in the DES‐ISR group. (11.7% vs 22.1 %, P = 0.038)

Conclusion

During the 1‐year follow‐up period, DEBs angioplasty for BMS‐ISR had better clinical outcomes and less TLR than DES‐ISR. ESRD and previous DEB failure were associated to TLR in DES‐ISR group.

     

Current Status of Drug‐Eluting Stents

First‐generation drug‐eluting stents (DES) with controlled release of sirolimus or paclitaxel from durable polymers compared with bare‐metal stents have been consistently shown to reduce the risk of repeat revascularization procedures due to restenosis. The superior efficacy was found across a wide range of patients and lesion subsets and persisted up to 5 years whereas similar outcomes have been observed in terms of death and myocardial infarction. Newer generation DES have been developed with the goal to further improve upon the safety profile of first‐generation DES while maintaining efficacy. These platforms include DES with improved and more biocompatible durable polymers, DES using bioabsorbable polymers for drug release, DES with polymer‐free drug release, and fully bioabsorbable DES. Newer generation DES with durable polymers such as zotarolimus‐eluting or everolimus‐eluting XIENCE V stents have been directly compared with first‐generation DES. Most recent results of large scale clinical trials are encouraging in terms of similar or increased efficacy while improving safety by reducing the rates of myocardial infarctions and stent thrombosis. DES using biodegradable polymers for drug release represent the next technological modification and preliminary results are favorable and demonstrate similar angiographic and clinical efficacy as first‐generation DES, but only longer term follow‐up and investigation in larger patient cohorts will determine whether their use is associated with improved long‐term safety. Fully bioabsorbable stents represent another innovative approach. Whether this innovative concept will enter into clinical routine remains yet to be determined.     

Long‐Term Outcomes of Drug‐Eluting Stent Therapy for In‐Stent Restenosis Versus De Novo Lesions

Background

Drug‐eluting stents (DES) are currently the most popular treatment modality for restenosis in bare metal stents and DES. This study compares risks of adverse cardiovascular events between DES‐treated in‐stent restenosis (ISR) and de novo lesions, an area that has not been systematically studied thus far.

Methods and Results

One thousand three hundred consecutive ISR patients were compared with 27,211 patients with de novo lesions who underwent DES treatment during the same period at the Fu Wai Hospital in Beijing. Angiographic success rate was similar between the ISR and de novo groups (98.0% vs. 98.2%; P = 0.61). Using logistic regression to derive the propensity score model, 1,266 matched patient pairs were compared. In this adjusted model, the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was significantly higher in the ISR group (19.19% vs. 2.37%; P < 0.01) during an average 17‐month follow‐up, while rates of cardiac death and myocardial infarction (MI) were similar (0.71% vs. 0.79%; P = 0.93 and 3.48% vs. 1.26%; P = 0.13, respectively) between groups. In multivariate regression analysis, ISR was predictive of TLR, but not of cardiac death and MI.

Conclusion

Compared with those with de novo lesions, patients with ISR had a higher revascularization rate after DES treatment but no significant difference in rates of cardiac death and MI.

     

Outcomes of Overlapping Heterogeneous Drug‐Eluting Stents Versus Homogeneous Drug‐Eluting Stents for Diffuse Lesions in Small Coronary Arteries

Objective

To investigate the outcomes of overlapping drug‐eluting stenting (DES) in small and diffuse lesions.

Background

Clinical outcomes of overlapping heterogeneous versus homogeneous DES of diffuse lesions (requiring ≥30 mm of length) in small coronary arteries (requiring ≤2.75 mm of diameter) are unknown.

Methods

From January 2005 to December 2009, there were 99 patients with diffuse lesions in small coronary arteries receiving overlapping heterogeneous DES, and 558 patients receiving overlapping homogeneous DES at our institution. The clinical end‐point of the study included in‐hospital and 12‐month major adverse cardiac events (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR).

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between overlapping heterogeneous and homogeneous DES groups in‐hospital (2.0% vs. 1.4%, respectively; P = 0.66) and 12‐month (9.1% vs. 9.3%, respectively; P = 0.94) major adverse cardiac events. After adjustment, no significant differences for major adverse cardiac events were noted, but the rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction was lower in overlapping homogeneous DES group (odds ratio: 4.20, P = 0.03).

Conclusion

In this analysis, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events between the 2 types of overlapping DES for diffuse lesions in small coronary arteries, except for higher nonfatal myocardial infarction in overlapping heterogeneous DES. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:264–270)

     

Beneficial Impact of Prolonged Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation

Background: Twelve‐month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) with aspirin and clopidogrel after drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation is routinely recommended. It is unclear if prolonged (>12‐month) DAT is also favorable. We compared the outcome of patients discontinuing DAT 12 months after off‐label DES implantation versus those with DAT for >12 months. Methods: Baseline, treatment, and outcome data of patients undergoing off‐label DES implantation and free from events 11.5 months after index procedure were retrospectively retrieved. Those discontinuing DAT between 11.5 and 12.5 months (12‐month DAT group) were compared to those discontinuing DAT after 12.5 months (>12‐month DAT group). The primary end‐point was the long‐term (>24‐month) rate of major adverse cerebro‐cardiovascular events (MACCE). Results: Two hundred seventy‐two patients met study inclusion criteria: 133 (48.9%) in the 12‐month DAT group and 139 (51.1%) in the >12‐month DAT group (who were on DAT for an average of 24 months). After an average of 36 months after DES implantation, 14 patients (5.1%) developed MACCE, with 6 (3.5%) cardiac deaths, 7 (2.2%) myocardial infarctions, no stroke, and 5 (1.8%) repeat revascularizations. The >12‐month DAT group had a significantly lower risk of MACCE (1 [0.7%] vs. 13 [9.8%] in the 12‐month DAT group, P < 0.001) and myocardial infarction (0 vs. 7 [5.3%], P = 0.006), with such differences confirmed at multivariable propensity‐adjusted analyses. No significant differences in terms of minor or major bleedings occurred. Conclusions: In this retrospective registry, patients with off‐label DES implantation receiving prolonged (>12 months) DAT presented with lower rates of MACCE and myocardial infarction. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:596–603)     

Comparison between Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty and Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation for the Treatment of Stent Fracture

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stent fracture (SF).

Background

SF has been reported as a predictor of in‐stent restenosis (ISR) and stent thrombosis (ST).

Methods

Between January 2009 and December 2012, consecutive SF cases treated with either drug‐eluting stent (DES) or plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The study endpoints were all‐cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), ST, re‐stent fracture (re‐SF), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as the composite of cardiac death, MI, and TLR.

Results

Of 135 SF cases, 67 (49.6%) cases were treated with DES, whereas 68 (50.4%) cases with POBA. Median follow‐up period was 1,401 (IQR: 967–1,771) days. The estimated MACE rate at 3 years was significantly lower in the DES group as compared with the POBA group largely driven by less TLR (25.7 vs. 55.8%, P < 0.001). Moreover, 1‐year landmark analysis after PCI for SF revealed that MACE continued to occur even after 1 year irrespective of the treatment option (P = 0.47). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, POBA and large post‐procedure angle (Δ) defined as the degree difference between the end systolic and diastolic angle were identified as independent predictors for TLR.

Conclusions

DES implantation for SF is associated with better clinical outcomes as compared to POBA alone, due to a lower need for TLR. Large post‐procedural angle (Δ) appears to be an independent predictor of TLR.

     

One‐Year Results of the CRISTAL Trial,a Randomized Comparison of Cypher Sirolimus‐Eluting Coronary Stents versus Balloon Angioplasty for Restenosis of Drug‐Eluting Stents

Objectives: We compared the efficacy of the Cypher Select? (Cordis Corporation, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) versus balloon angioplasty (BA) in in‐stent restenosis (ISR) of Taxus? or Taxus Liberté? paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES; Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) or Cypher/Cypher Select SES. Background: Optimal treatment strategies have not been identified for drug‐eluting stent (DES) ISR. Methods: Patients with a native coronary artery SES or PES ISR were randomized to SES or BA. In addition, a control group included BMS ISR treated with SES. Angiographic control was performed at 12 months. Results: 281 patients were enrolled. Significant differences favoring SES over BA were noted in immediate and net gain (1.39 ± 0.51 vs. 0.97 ± 0.54 mm, P < 0.0001 and 1.07 ± 0.69 vs. 0.49 ± 0.67 mm, P < 0.0001), 12‐month mean luminal diameter (MLD; 2.14 ± 0.62 vs. 1.71 ± 0.55 mm, P < 0.0001) and percent diameter stenosis (%DS; 21 ± 19.24 vs. 29.82 ± 18.47, P = 0.001). There was no significant difference at 12 months between SES and BA in the primary end‐point late lumen loss (LLL; 0.37 ± 0.57 vs.0.41 ± 0.63, P = 0.73) and in in‐stent binary restenosis (11.1% vs. 14%, P = 0.59). Target‐lesion revascularization (TLR) was numerically lower in patients treated with SES (5.9% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.097). There was no difference according to the initial DES. In contrast, significantly higher immediate and net gains and MLD were noted in the BMS control group treated by SES. Conclusions: In this angiographic randomized trial comparing SES and BA in SES or PES restenosis, 12 month MLD, immediate and net gain, and %DS favored SES whereas no difference was noted in LLL. Condensed Abstract Optimal treatment strategies have not been identified for sirolimus‐ (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) in‐stent restenosis (ISR). We randomized patients with a native coronary artery SES or PES ISR to SES or BA. In addition, a control group included BMS ISR treated with SES. There was no difference in the primary end‐point, late lumen loss (LLL) at 12 months between the SES and BA groups. However, follow‐up MLD and immediate and net gain favored SES. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:586–595)     

Risk of Long‐Term Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation in Octogenarians

Objectives

To evaluate the risk of long‐term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) following drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in octogenarians.

Background

DES implantation requires DAT; however, DAT‐associated risk in octogenarians remains unclear.

Methods

Two‐hundred and six consecutive octogenarians (130 men, 83.3 ± 3.4 years) underwent stent implantation (104 bare metal stents [BMSs] and 102 DESs) and 38.0 ± 13.2 months of follow‐up.

Results

Significantly more DES patients received DAT. The incidence of bleeding events was similar in the DES and BMS groups for 1 year (total: 10.8% vs 5.8%, P = 0.19; major: 4.9% vs 2.9%, P = 0.70). However, after 2 years, significantly more bleeding events occurred in the DES group than the BMS group (total: 2 years, 21.6% vs 9.6%, P = 0.02; 3 years, 29.4% vs 11.5%, P = 0.001; 4 years, 31.4% vs 15.4%, P = 0.007; major: 2 years, 12.7% vs 3.8%, P = 0.04; 3 years, 18.6% vs 5.8%, P = 0.005; 4 years, 19.6% vs 6.7%, P = 0.006). Overall, significantly more total bleeding events (31.4% vs 15.4%, P = 0.007) and major bleeding events (19.2% vs 6.7%, P = 0.006) were observed in the DES group than in the BMS group. The adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were as follows: total bleeding events, 2.203 (95% CI: 1.065–4.556; P = 0.033); major bleeding events, 4.324 (1.506–12.414; P = 0.007).

Conclusions

DAT was associated with an increased risk of bleeding events in octogenarians after 2 years. DAT discontinuation should be considered for octogenarians 1‐year post‐DES implantation. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:114–122)

     

Nine‐Month Angiographic and Intravascular Ultrasound Outcomes After Resolute Zotarolimus‐Eluting Stent Implantation for the Treatment of In‐Stent Restenosis

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the mid‐term outcomes of resolute zotarolimus‐eluting stent (R‐ZES) implantation for in‐stent restenosis (ISR).

Background

There has been a paucity of data regarding the effects of new‐generation drug‐eluting stent to treat ISR.

Methods

From 2009 to 2010, a total of 98 patients with 98 ISR lesions were prospectively enrolled after R‐ZES implantation for the treatment of ISR. Among 98 patients, 73 patients underwent follow‐up angiography at 9 months. Serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) at both postprocedure and 9 months was evaluated in 55 patients. The overlapped segment of R‐ZES was defined as the portion of R‐ZES superimposed on previous stent.

Results

Late loss and binary restenosis rate were 0.3 ± 0.5 mm and 5.5% at 9 months. On IVUS, the percentage of neointimal volume and maximum percentage of neointimal area were 3.9 ± 6.3% and 17.3 ± 15.5%, respectively. There was no significant change of vessel volume index between postprocedure and 9 months (16.9 ± 4.7 mm³/mm vs. 17.1 ± 4.6 mm³/mm, P = 0.251). Late‐acquired incomplete stent apposition was observed in 5 (5/55, 9.1%) cases. Compared with nonoverlapped segments of R‐ZES, the overlapped did not show larger neointimal volume index (0.3 ± 0.5 mm³/mm vs. 0.2 ± 0.3 mm³/mm, P = 0.187) on 9‐month IVUS. During follow‐up (median, 353 days), repeat target‐lesion revascularization was performed in four cases, but there were no death or stent thrombosis.

Conclusions

This study suggested that R‐ZES implantation for the treatment of ISR was effective up to 9 months and showed favorable vascular responses on serial IVUS assessment.