Treatment of saphenous vein graft lesions with drug-eluting stents: immediate and midterm outcome

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present report was to evaluate clinical and angiographic outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions. BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of DES implantation for the treatment SVG lesions remains uncertain. METHODS: We evaluated in-hospital and six-month outcomes in 61 consecutive patients treated with DES in SVG lesions from March 2002 to March 2004 (DES group), as compared to 89 consecutive patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) in the 24 months immediately before the introduction of DES (BMS group). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were recorded in-hospital and at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: The rate of in-hospital MACE was similar between the two groups (6.6% vs. 5.6%, p = 1.0). Cumulative MACE at six months was 11.5% in the DES group and 28.1% in the BMS group (p = 0.02). The DES group had a significantly lower incidence of in-segment restenosis (10.0% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.03), TLR (3.3% vs. 19.8%, p = 0.003), and TVR (4.9% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.003). By Cox regression analysis, diabetes (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33 to 6.90; p = 0.008), usage of BMS (HR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.07 to 5.97; p = 0.03), and age of SVG (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.19; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of MACE at six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to BMS implantation, DES implantation in SVG lesions appears safe with favorable and improved mid-term outcomes.     

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

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

Clinical outcomes following drug-eluting versus bare metal stent implantation for lesion subsets excluded from pivotal clinical trials: findings from the GHOST Study (Guthrie Health System Off-Label StenT Study)

Objectives: We assessed outcomes of patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) vs. bare metal stent (BMS) implantation for complex lesions excluded from pivotal clinical trials of DES.
Background: Although DES improve target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to BMS in randomized trials, data on safety and efficacy of DES in complex lesions are insufficient.
Methods: In a single-center registry of 1,354 patients who underwent stent implantation for complex lesions between July 2001 and December 2005, we compared the incidence of death, death or myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis [definite or probable by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria], TVR, and MACE between patients who received DES (n = 483) versus those who received BMS (n = 871). Mean duration of follow-up was 494 versus 838 days in DES and BMS groups, respectively.
Results: Clinical outcomes in DES versus BMS groups were as follows: death 5.2% versus 11.5% (log-rank P = 0.042); death/MI 11.2% versus 16.7% (P = 0.47), stent thrombosis 2.9% versus 2.6% (P = 0.61), TVR 6.6 versus 18.5% (P < 0.0001), MACE 14.9% versus 29.7% (P = 0.0002), respectively. After adjustment for baseline differences, DES implantation was associated with lower TVR (adjusted hazards ratio HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.26–0.56, P < 0.0001) and MACE (HR = 0.56, CI 0.42–0.74, P < 0.0001) without significant impact on other outcomes. In 933 patients who underwent DES (n = 483) or BMS (n = 450) implantation in the year 2003 or later, DES implantation similarly lowered TVR and MACE without affecting other outcomes.
Conclusions: Our findings support the safety and efficacy of DES in patient subsets excluded from pivotal randomized clinical trials of DES.     

Percutaneous intervention on the saphenous vein bypass grafts—Long‐term outcomes

Background/Objective : In this era of drug eluting stents (DES), the long‐term outcome of percutaneous intervention (PCI) on saphenous venous grafts (SVG) is unknown. The objective of the study was to compare the long‐term outcomes of DES versus bare metal stent (BMS) in this population and to determine the predictors of outcomes. Methods : We reviewed the medical records of all patients who had PCI performed during January 2003 to February 2005 to obtain data cardiac risk factors, medications at discharge, angiographic details and outcomes. Results : One hundred and nine patient had PCI to SVG; of these, 37 patients received DES and the remaining had BMS. Over a mean follow‐up of 33 months, the PCI using DES was associated with 30% restenosis, 35% target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate of 46% versus 35% restenosis, 38% TVR and 50% MACE rate with BMS. There was no significant difference in long‐term outcome with DES as compared to BMS. Conclusion : There was no difference in the long‐term outcomes of PCI on SVG irrespective of the type of stent used. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparing long‐term outcomes between drug‐eluting and bare‐metal stents in the treatment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy

Background: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is the leading cause of death after the first year following heart transplantation. We compared restenosis rates, mortality, and other major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between transplant recipients treated with DES and BMS for CAV. Methods: All patients from our heart transplant registry undergoing PCI with stenting for CAV were identified. Procedural data, baseline clinical characteristics, yearly coronary angiography, cardiac events and death were prospectively collected. Primary outcome was in‐stent restenosis (ISR). Secondary outcomes were in‐segment restenosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), all‐cause mortality and combined MACE. Results: 36 lesions in 25 patients treated with DES were compared with 31 BMS‐treated lesions in 19 patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. 12‐month incidence of ISR was 0% with DES vs. 12.9% with BMS, P = 0.03. Over mean (±standard error) follow‐up of 51.1 ± 7.5 months this difference was significant for vessels ≤3 mm in diameter, hazard ratio (HR) DES vs. BMS 0.37 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.95) P = 0.037; but not for vessels >3 mm P = 0.45. However, there was no difference in overall longterm patency because of similar rates of in‐segment restenosis between DES and BMS, HR 1.13 (95% CI 0.43 to 2.97) P = 0.81. Also, the rates of TVR, death from any cause and combined MACE were similar; log rank P 0.88, 0.67, and 0.85, respectively. Conclusion: This study suggests that after PCI for cardiac allograft vasculopathy, despite a lower in‐stent restenosis rate in DES compared with BMS, in‐segment restenosis and clinical cardiac endpoints are similar. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Clinical results of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with drug eluting stents (DES) versus a matched control group of patients with STEMI treated with bare metal stents (BMS). METHODS: This registry included 122 patients with STEMI undergoing primary coronary angioplasty with DES implantation at our institution. The control group consisted of 506 patients implanted with BMS, who were matched for age, infarct location, and diabetic status. The incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR) and stent thrombosis were assessed up to 12 months. RESULTS: Twelve months follow up showed a non-significant trend towards reduced deaths (3.3% versus 7.1%, P=0.1), significantly reduced recurrent MI (0.0% versus 6.1%, P=0.02), TVR (5.7% versus 15.2%, P=0.006) and TLR (2.5% versus 14.0%, P=0.004) events in the DES group as compared to BMS group. The composite incidences of MACE at 12 months follow-up was lower in the DES group (11.5%) as compared to the BMS group (21.3%, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: According to our experiences, the use of DES in STEMI is safe and effective as compared to BMS. DES was effective in reducing the incidence of restenosis outcomes and overall adverse cardiac events up to 12 months.     

Drug-eluting stent-supported percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total coronary occlusion.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the clinical and angiographic outcomes after drug-eluting stent (DES)-supported percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO). BACKGROUND: There are few data about the efficacy of DES-supported PCI for CTO. METHODS: All consecutive patients who had a sirolimus-eluting stent or a paclitaxel-eluting stent implanted for CTO from December 2003 to December 2004 were analyzed. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with DES were compared with a case-matched control group of patients treated with bare metal stents (BMS) in the 12 months before the routine use of DES. RESULTS: Successful DES-supported PCI was performed in 92 patients and 104 CTO. The case-matched control group consisted of 26 patients and 27 CTO successfully treated with BMS. There were no differences between groups in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Stent length in the DES group was higher as compared with that of BMS group (51+/-28 mm vs. 40+/-19 mm, P=0.073). The 6-month major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was lower in the DES group as compared with that of BMS group (9.8% vs. 23%, P=0.072). The angiographic follow-rate was 80% in the DES group and 81% in the BMS group. The 6-month restenosis rate was 19% in the DES group and 45% in the BMS group (P<0.001). By multivariate analysis, it was found that in the DES group, the only predictors of restenosis were stented segment length (OR 1.031, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, P=0.009) and a target vessel reference diameter<2.5 mm (OR 6.48, 95% CI 1.51-27.83, P=0.012), while the only predictor of MACE was stent length (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08, P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: DES implantation for CTO decreases the risk of mid-term restenosis and MACE. Small vessels and diffuse disease requiring the implantation of multiple stents and very long stents for full coverage of the target lesion are still associated with a relatively high risk of restenosis.     

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

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

Safety and effectiveness of drug eluting stent in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty

Background : Drug eluting stents (DES) have recently been proven to further reduce restenosis and revascularization rate in comparison to bare metal stents in elective procedures. Most early DES trials did not include patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST‐segment elevation MI, because these patients tend to have lower restenosis rates than other patient groups and delayed endothelization of these stents raises concern about a possible increase of thrombotic complications in the setting of STEMI. Aim : To confirm the safety and effectiveness of DES in patients with STEMI in a real‐world scenario. Methods : From January 2004 to December 2006, clinical and angiographic data of 370 patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI have been analyzed. Patients were retrospectively followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results : Overall, 120 patients received DES (32%, DES group) and 250 received bare metal stents (68%, BMS group) in the infarct related artery. Compared with the BMS group, DES patients were younger, (mean age 56 ± 12 vs. 65 ± 10; P < 0.001) had more often diabetes mellitus (47% vs. 14% P < 0.001), anterior localization (65% vs. 45%; P < 0.0011) and less cardiogenic shock at admission (4% vs. 7%; P < 0.001). The angiographic characteristics in the DES group showed longer lesions (23 mm vs. 19 mm) and smaller diameter of vessels (2.5 mm vs. 3.0 mm). After a median follow‐up of 24 ± 9 months, there was no significant difference in the rate of stent thrombosis (1.6% in the DES group vs. 1.2% in the BMS group, P = ns). The incidence of MACE was significantly lower in the DES group compared with the BMS group (HR 0.56 [95% CI: 0.3–0.8]; P = 0.01), principally due to the lower rate of TVR (HR 0.41 [95% CI: 0.2–0.85]; P = 0.01). Conclusions : Utilization of DES in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI, in our “real world,” was safe and improved the 3‐year clinical outcome compared with BMS reducing the need of TVR. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

药物洗脱支架对完全闭塞性病变介入治疗预后影响的评估

目的比较对于完全性闭塞病变采用药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架的近期和远期预后。方法选择我院近期连续接受置入药物洗脱支架(DES)或金属裸支架(BMS)治疗,并且进行冠状动脉造影随访的155例存在完全闭塞病变的冠心病患者。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155例患者(138名男性,17名女性)159处靶病变置入232枚支架完成造影随访,其中慢性完全性闭塞65例,占41.9%。其中C型病变占总数的85.4%。在患者基本条件方面,DES组2型糖尿病比例要多于BMS组(33.8%比18.5%,P=0.030)。在病变基本条件方面,DES组和BMS组C型病变分别占89.6%和72.0%(P=0.005),DES组病变更为复杂。DES组慢性完全闭塞病变比例明显高于BMS组(60.3%比24.4%,P<0.001)。DES组和BMS组的支架长度和病变长度没有差别。DES组参考血管直径小于BMS组[(2.72±0.36)mm比(2.96±0.52)mm,P=0.001]。6个月随访结果显示支架再狭窄DES组明显低于BMS组(15.6%比41.5%,P<0.001)。DES组支架再狭窄更多为局限性(58.3%比17.6%,P<0.001)。DES组的靶病变血管重建率明显低于BMS组(5.8%比19.9%,P=0.001)。病变内晚期腔径丢失DES明显小于BMS[(0.36±0.63)mm比(1.04±0.70)mm,P<0.001]。晚期支架内血栓DES有2例,BMS为0。DES组有1例死亡。术后主要心脏不良事件发生率两组分别是1.4%和11.1%,DES组显著低于BMS组(P=0.032)。结论我们的研究发现对于完全闭塞性病变的治疗,DES有着良好的治疗效果,比BMS有着明显减低的再狭窄率、靶病变血管重建率,并且在随访期间患者有着更少的心血管事件。     

The short‐ and long‐term outcomes of percutaneous intervention with drug‐eluting stent vs bare‐metal stent in saphenous vein graft disease: An updated meta‐analysis of all randomized clinical trials

The use of drug‐eluting stents (DES) vs bare‐metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remains controversial. We conducted a meta‐analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing the outcomes of DES with BMS in SVG percutaneous coronary interventions. A search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed for all randomized clinical trials. We evaluated the short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes of the following: all‐cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), definite/probable stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target‐vessel revascularization (TVR). From a total of 1582 patients in 6 randomized clinical trials, 797 had DES and 785 had BMS. Patients with DES had lower short‐term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35–0.91, P = 0.02; OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.19–0.99, P = 0.05; and OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22–0.95, P = 0.04, respectively). However, there were no different outcomes for all‐cause mortality (P = 0.63) or stent thrombosis (P = 0.21). With long‐term follow‐up, there were no significant reductions of MACE (P = 0.20), TLR (P = 0.57), TVR (P = 0.07), all‐cause mortality (P = 0.29), and stent thrombosis (P = 0.76). The use of DES in SVG lesions was associated with lower short‐term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS. However, there were no significant differences with long‐term follow‐up.     

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in ST elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-label Stent (GHOST) Registry

Background: Multiple randomized trials and observational studies have shown drug‐eluting stents (DES) to be safe and effective at 3‐year follow‐up in stent thrombosis (ST)‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, outcomes data beyond 3–4 years after DES implantation are sparse. Methods: We studied 554 STEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with either DES or bare metal stent (BMS). Primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of ST and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary end‐points were time to occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and discrete events that comprise MACE (death, MI, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcomes of the DES and BMS groups were assessed by survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression. Results: There were 205 (37%) patients who received DES and 349 (63%) patients who received BMS. At a median follow‐up of 41.4 months after PCI, there were no differences in the unadjusted incidence of ST (ST, 3.4 vs. 4.3%, log‐rank P = 0.61) and MI (6.8% vs. 8%, P = 0.61) between DES versus BMS groups, respectively. However, DES implantation was associated with lower unadjusted incidence of death or MI (11% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.0002), MACE (16% vs. 34%, P < 0.0001), death (6.3% vs. 17%, P = 0.0004), and TVR (9.8% vs. 18%, P = 0.008) than BMS implantation. In multivariable analyses, DES implantation was associated with significantly lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR = 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31–0.76], P = 0.0007) than BMS implantation. Conclusion: In our study of STEMI patients, DES implantation was safer than BMS implantation and was associated with lower MACE at long‐term follow‐up. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:118–125)     

药物支架和裸支架治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者的随访研究

目的 评价药物支架和裸支架治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者疗效和预后方法217例接受了急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者纳入本研究,药物支架组92例、裸支架组125例,收集基线资料并随访6～38个月.结果 裸支架组的平均年龄(64.6±11.9)岁、Killip分级(2、3、4级)为25.9%和支架平均直径为(3.07±0.38)mm,均高于药物支架组(61.2±11.8)岁、12.2%和(2.91±0.40),差异有统计学意义(t=2.09,P=0.037;χ2=5.53,P=0.019;t=2.78,P=0.006),裸支架组平均左心室射血分数(55.4±11.9)%低于药物支架组(60.3±12.8)%,差异有统计学意义(t=-2.57,P=0.011).支架长度[(32.8±16.2)mm、(26.2±11.2)mm]、支架后扩张(45.7%、21.6%)、糖尿病(28.2%、16.0%)药物支架组高于裸支架组(t=-3.54,P=0.001;χ2=13.85,P=0.0002;χ2=4.77,P=0.030).随访期间,主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生36例,药物支架组6例(6.5%),裸支架组30例(24.0%)(χ2=11.70,P＜0.01).结论 急性ST段抬高心肌梗死急诊介入治疗是安全有效的,同裸支架相比药物支架明显降低随访期MACE发生率而改善预后.     

Lack of clinical long‐term benefit with the use of a drug eluting stent compared to use of a bare metal stent in saphenous vein grafts

Background: Small randomized trials have shown short‐term improved outcome with drug‐eluting stents (DES) over bare metal stent (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions by reducing in‐stent restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). It is not clear, however, if these benefits are maintained long term. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome in a larger cohort of patients undergoing SVG stent implantation with DES or BMS, at 2 years. Methods: From among 250 patients who underwent SVG stenting, 225 patients with available follow‐up were selected from data bases at the three participating institutions. One‐hundred‐six patients had DES (sirolimus, paclitaxel or tacrolimus eluting stent) and 119 patients had any available BMS from April 2002 to December 2006. The primary endpoint was MACE rate, a combination of cardiac death, S‐T elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and target lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Follow‐up was obtained by mailed interviews or telephone calls and review of the hospital chart. Results: The DES and BMS groups had similar age (71 ± 8 years vs. 70 ± 7 years, P = 1.0), diabetes (45% vs. 36%, P = 0.3), history of MI (58% vs. 51%, P = 0.6), EF (44% vs. 47%, P = 0.2) and previous PCI (40% vs. 35%, P = 0.4). Reference vessel diameter (3.15 ± 0.5 mm vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 mm. P = 0.001) and stent size (3.3 ± 0.4 mm vs. 3.9 ± 0.5 mm, P = 0.001) were smaller in the DES group; however, the BMS were longer (24 ± 10 mm vs. 21 ± 6 mm, P = 0.05). At one year there was a trend (P = 0.1) for lower MACE rate in the DES group, but at two years there was no difference in MACE free survival between the DES and BMS groups (81 % vs. 82%, P = 0.9). The death rate was similar (6% each) with three patients having STEMI (two in the DES and one in the BMS). TVR was also similar (14% in each group). Conclusion: In patients undergoing treatment of SVG disease with a stent, the marginal benefit of DES seen at 1 year was lost at 2‐year follow‐up. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

药物洗脱支架治疗冠状动脉小血管病变的疗效分析

目的通过分析比较裸金属支架(BMS)与药物洗脱支架[DES,包括雷帕霉素(Cypher)支架和紫杉醇(TAXUS)支架]治疗冠状动脉小血管病变疗效的差异,为DES治疗多支及单支小血管病变冠心病提供依据。方法连续入选2002年12月至2005年5月沈阳军区总医院首次接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)、靶血管为小血管病变且达到完全血运重建的486例患者,其中多支小血管病变(多支)150例。分为BMS组214例(多支63例)、Cypher组140例(多支46例)和TAXUS组132例(多支41例),对比分析各组患者住院期间及随访6个月的临床情况。结果3组患者冠脉病变特点、PCI成功率及住院期间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率等指标差异均无显著性(P>0·05)。冠脉造影随访显示,两个DES组再狭窄率均明显低于BMS(Cypher组4·9%,TAXUS组7·5%对BMS组29·2%,P<0·05),随访期间MACE发生率亦明显低于BMS(Cypher组2·9%,TAXUS组3·9%对BMS组12·0%,P<0·01)。进一步分析多支小血管病例,发现两个DES组的再狭窄率及随访期间MACE发生率仍然明显低于BMS组(再狭窄率Cypher组6·7%,TAXUS组7·1%对BMS组37·5%,P<0·05;MACE发生率Cypher组4·1%,TAXUS组4·8%对BMS组21·0%,P<0·05)。结论Cypher和TAXUS支架治疗小血管病变安全可行,疗效显著,治疗多支小血管病变可得到相同的疗效。     

Comparison of long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following implantation of bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents in aorto-ostial lesions

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to aorto-ostial (AO) lesions is technically demanding and associated with high revascularization rates. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes after bare metal stent (BMS) compared to drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation after PCI to AO lesions. A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of all consecutive patients who underwent PCI to AO lesions at 2 centers. Angiographic and clinical outcomes in 230 patients with DES from September 2000 to December 2009 were compared to a historical control group of 116 patients with BMS. Comparison of the baseline demographics showed more diabetics (32% vs 16%, p = 0.001), lower ejection fractions (52.3 ± 9.7% vs 55.0 ± 11.5%, p = 0.022), longer stents (17.55 ± 7.76 vs 14.37 ± 5.60 mm, p <0.001), and smaller final stent minimum luminal diameters (3.43 ± 0.53 vs 3.66 ± 0.63 mm, p = 0.001) in the DES versus BMS group. Angiographic follow-up (DES 68%, BMS 66%) showed lower restenosis rates with DES (20% vs 47%, p <0.001). At clinical follow-up, target lesion revascularization rates were lowest with DES (12% vs 27%, p = 0.001). Cox regression analysis with propensity score adjustment for baseline differences suggested that DES were associated with a reduction in target lesion revascularization (hazard ratios 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.52, p <0.001) and major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.79, p = 0.003). There was a nonsignificantly higher incidence of Academic Research Consortium definite and probable stent thrombosis with DES (n = 9 [4%] vs n = 1 [1%], p = 0.131). In conclusion, despite differences in baseline characteristics favoring the BMS group, PCI with DES in AO lesions was associated with improved outcomes, with lower restenosis, revascularization, and major adverse cardiac event rates.     

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents following successful PCI in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-Label StenT (GHOST) Registry

Background: The long‐term safety and effectiveness of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) beyond 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. Methods: We studied 674 NSTEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with DES (n = 323) or BMS (n = 351). The primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of death or nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST). Secondary end‐points included time to occurrence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE, defined as the composite of death, MI, ST, TVR). Results: The DES and BMS groups were well matched except that DES patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for a longer duration and had smaller final vessel diameter. In survival analysis, at a mean follow‐up of 1333 ± 659 days after PCI, the DES group had similar incidence of death/myocardial infarction (24% vs. 27%, log rank p = 0.23) and ST (4.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.18) as the BMS group. The DES patients had lower incidence of TVR (8.1% vs. 17%, p = 0.0018) but similar MACE (26% vs. 37%, p = 0.31). In multivariable analysis, DES vs. BMS implantation showed no significant impact on death/myocardial infarction [adjusted hazards ratio (HR) 1.0, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.7–1.4], ST (HR 1.7; CI 0.7 – 4.0), or MACE (HR 0.8; CI 0.6 – 1.1). However, TVR was lower in the DES group (HR 0.4; CI 0.3 – 0.7). Conclusion: In patients presenting with NSTEMI, DES implantation appears to be as safe as BMS implantation at long‐term follow‐up. In addition, DES are effective in reducing TVR compared to BMS. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:28–36)     

Drug-Eluting Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention: An Updated Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BackgroundDrug eluting stents (DES) are preferred over bare metal stents (BMS) for native coronary artery revascularization unless contraindicated. However, the preferred stent choice for saphenous venous graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is unclear due to conflicting results.MethodsPubMed, Clinical trials registry and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2018. Seven studies (n = 1639) comparing DES versus BMS in SVG-PCI were included. Endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), in-stent thrombosis, binary in-stent restenosis, and late lumen loss (LLL).ResultsOverall, during a mean follow up of 32.1 months, there was no significant difference in the risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, MI, stent thrombosis, TVR and TLR between DES and BMS. However, short-term follow up (mean 11 months) showed lower rate of MACE (OR 0.66 [0.51, 0.85]; p = 0.002), TVR (OR 0.47 [0.23, 0.97]; p = 0.04) and binary in-stent restenosis (OR 0.14 [0.06, 0.37]; p < 0.0001) in DES as compared with BMS. This benefit was lost on long-term follow up with a mean follow up 35.5 months.ConclusionIn this meta-analysis of SVG-PCI, DES use was associated with similar MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, MI, in-stent thrombosis, TVR and TLR compared with BMS during long-term follow up. There was high incidence of MACE noted in both DES and BMS suggesting a need for exploring novel strategies to treat SVG disease to improve clinical outcomes.     

Safety and efficacy of drug eluting stents compared with bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft interventions: A comprehensive meta‐analysis of randomized trials and observational studies comprising 7,994 patients

Background: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remain amongst the most challenging lesions for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is unknown whether drug eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare metal stents (BMS) for such lesions. Our objective is to determine the safety and efficacy of DES compared with BMS for SVG lesions by performing a meta‐analysis of clinical trials and observational studies. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, and internet‐based resources of clinical trials. Study Selection: Studies comparing DES vs. BMS for SVG lesions with at least > 30 patients in each study reporting the outcomes of interest [death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis (ST), and the composite of death, TVR and MI (major adverse cardiac events; MACE)] with at least 6 months clinical follow‐up. The primary outcome of interest was death. Results: Two randomized trials, one subgroup analysis of a randomized trial and 26 observational studies comprising a total of 7,994 patients (4,187 patients in DES and 3,807 patients in BMS group) were included in the analysis .Mean follow‐up duration was 21 ± 11 months (6–48 months). In the overall population, MACE events were 19% in DES and 28% in BMS with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) P < 0.00001. This effect of MACE was sustained in studies with >2 years follow‐up with RR of 0.77 (0.65, 0.91) P = 0.003. Death rate was 7.8% in DES and 9% in BMS with a RR of 0.82 (0.7, 0.97) P = 0.02. MI rate was 5.7% in DES and 7.6% in BMS with RR of 0.72 (0.57, 0.91) P = 0.007. TVR was 12% in DES and 17% in BMS with RR of 0.71 (0.59, 0.85) P = 0.0002. ST was 1% in DES and 1.7 % in BMS RR of 0.61 (0.35, 1.06) P = 0.08. Specifically in randomized controlled trials, DES were associated with no significant differences in overall mortality [RR = 1.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17–23; P = 0.58] or MI (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.3–5.5; P = 0.78) compared with BMS. Conclusions: Based on the results of this meta‐analysis, DES may be considered as a safe and efficacious option for the percutaneous intervention of SVG lesions. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Pivotal, randomized U.S. study of the Symbiottrade mark covered stent system in patients with saphenous vein graft disease: eight-month angiographic and clinical results from the Symbiot III trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and angiographic outcomes of the Symbiot ePTFE covered stent versus bare metal stents (BMS) for the treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease. BACKGROUND: The Symbiot stent was developed to reduce periprocedural complications, by potentially preventing distal embolization, and to serve as a possible barrier to cell migration, thus reducing restenosis. METHODS: Symbiot III is a prospective, randomized trial of 400 patients at 45 US sites, with 201 patients in the Symbiot group and 199 in the BMS group. Randomization was stratified based on the intended use of embolic protection devices and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The primary endpoint was percent diameter stenosis (%DS) as measured by quantitative coronary angiography at 8 months. Secondary endpoints included MACE (cardiac death, MI, TVR). RESULTS: The groups were well matched for all baseline clinical and lesion characteristics. At 8 months, %DS was comparable between groups (30.9% Symbiot, 31.9% BMS, P = 0.80). Although the rates of binary restenosis in the stented segment were similar (29.1% Symbiot, 21.9% BMS, P = 0.17), more patients in the Symbiot group had binary restenosis at the proximal edge (9.0% Symbiot, 1.8% BMS, P = 0.0211). There was no difference in the incidence of MACE between groups (30.6% Symbiot, 26.6% BMS, P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to show an advantage for the Symbiot stent in the treatment of degenerated SVGs. This PTFE covered stent does not appear to act as a barrier to prevent restenosis.