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.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

Recently, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the rate of adverse events among selected patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). We present real-world experience from a single center registry evaluating the safety and efficacy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected patients with STEMI using SES. Clinical outcome at 300-day follow-up in two cohorts of 225 consecutive patients who underwent bare metal stent (BMS) (January 2004-February 2005, n = 123) or SES (March 2005-December 2006, n = 102) implantation was examined. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, nonfatal reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). The incidence of short-term MACE was similar between the SES group and BMS group (30-day rate of MACE: 4.9% versus 8.9%, P = 0.30). Angiographically documented stent thrombosis within 30 days after primary PCI was not diagnosed in any patient in the SES group and occurred in 1 patient treated with BMS (0 versus 0.8%, P = 1.0). At 300 days, SES implantation significantly reduced the incidence of MACE (7.8% versus 22.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.71], P = 0.005), mainly due to a marked reduction in the risk of TVR (1.0% versus 17.1%, HR 0.05 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.39], P < 0.001). There was no new onset of documented stent thrombosis between 30 and 300 days in either group. Thus, this real-world registry confirmed the safety and efficacy of SES with remarkably lower rates of TVR and MACE in the setting of primary PCI for unselected patients with STEMI in a real-world scenario.     

国产西罗莫司洗脱支架与裸支架治疗急性心肌梗死临床疗效的比较

目的探讨国产西罗莫司洗脱支架与裸支架治疗急性心肌梗死（AMI）临床疗效的差异。方法173例连续行直接PCI的AMI患者随机分为西罗莫司洗脱支架组（87例）和裸支架组（86例）,分析住院期间和支架置入后6个月的支架内血栓、主要心血管事件（包括再次心肌梗死、缺血性靶血管重建和死亡）发生率及6个月再狭窄率。结果两组患者在术后血管通畅、肌酸激酶峰值、心功能和住院期间心脏事件方面差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组各有2例支架内血栓（2．4％比2．3％,P〉0．05）。6个月时,国产西罗莫司洗脱支架组的支架内再狭窄率（4．5％比40．0％,P〈0．01）、节段内再狭窄率（6．8％比44．9％,P〈0．01）和主要不良心脏事件发生率（8．0％比24．4％,P〈0．01）显著低于裸支架组。国产西罗莫司洗脱支架组主要心脏事件的减少主要是因为缺血性靶血管重建减少所致（3．4％比11．6％,P〈0．05）。结论与裸支架相比,国产西罗莫司洗脱支架治疗AMI患者并未增加6个月内支架内血栓的发生,而显著降低6个月的再狭窄率和主要心脏事件发生率。     

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.     

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.     

Initial and long-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents for calcified lesions compared with bare-metal stents

The aim of this study was to compare the initial and long-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with calcified lesions without performing rotational atherectomy. The subjects were 79 consecutive lesions (38 in the SES group and 41 in the BMS group) which were confirmed to have superficially calcified lesions by intravascular ultrasound. In all lesions, the stent was implanted after predilatation with a balloon. The patient characteristics were not different between the 2 groups. All procedures were successfully performed in both groups. Vessel area was significantly smaller in the SES group than in the BMS group (11.01 +/- 3.88 mm(2) versus 13.08 +/- 3.49 mm(2), P < 0.005), as was the lumen area (5.41 +/- 2.31mm(2) versus 6.48 +/- 2.04 mm(2), P < 0.005). Minimum stent area was significantly smaller in the SES group than in the BMS group (5.61 +/- 1.54 mm(2) versus 6.69 +/- 1.74 mm(2), P < 0.01). In cases in whom angiographic follow-ups were performed, the late loss was significantly smaller in the SES group than in the BMS group (0.19 +/- 0.49 mm versus 0.76 +/- 0.48 mm, P < 0.001). The restenosis rate was significantly lower in the SES group than in the BMS group (8.8% versus 33.3%, P < 0.05) and the TLR rate tended to be lower in the SES group (7.9% versus 19.5%). Stent thrombosis was not observed in either group. The results suggest that SES are more effective than BMS and can be used safely when treating calcified lesions if predilatation with a balloon is possible.     

Long-Term Clinical Follow-up after Sirolimus-Eluting Stent versus Bare Metal Stent Implantation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background and Objective: Drug-eluting stents have been shown to reduce the incidence of restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR) compared with bare metal stents (BMSs); however, the long-term efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has not been well established. We have investigated the long-term clinical outcome of SES in patients with ACS.
Methods: Consecutive 245 patients with ACS treated by primary stenting within 24 hours after onset were enrolled. There were 128 patients treated with SES and 117 patients were treated with BMS. We evaluated the incidence of major cardiac events (MACE; total death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, TVR) at 3 years, comparing with 8-month clinical outcome.
Results: Eight-month clinical follow-up shows a significantly lower incidence of TVR in the SES group, 3.1% in the SES group versus 9.4% in the BMS group (P = 0.04). At 3-year clinical follow-up, there was no significant difference in the rate of TVR between the two groups, 8.4% versus 12.4% (P = 0.37). Cumulative incidence of total MACE was 9.2% in the SES group compared with 15.9% in the BMS group (P = 0.18). Only one case of stent thrombosis was observed in the SES (late thrombosis), while two cases of stent thrombosis occurred in the BMS group (late and very late thrombosis; P = 0.55).
Conclusion: SES implantation in patients with ACS is associated with favorable long-term clinical outcome with no excess of late stent thrombosis. Further long-term clinical follow-up will be warranted to confirm the safety and efficacy of SES.     

In-stent restenosis in bare metal stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents after primary coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction and subsequent transcoronary transplantation of autologous stem cells

BACKGROUND: Following stenting for acute myocardial infarction, transcoronary transplantation of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilized autologous stem cells (ASC) has been shown to result in an increased in-stent restenosis rate of bare metal stents (BMS). HYPOTHESIS: This study sought to compare the extent of neointimal growth in BMS and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) after primary implantation, and subsequent transcoronary transplantation of G-CSF mobilized stem cells. METHODS: Patients with stenting of the left anterior descending coronary artery for acute anterior myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive a BMS or SES. Intracoronary stem cell injection was performed after G-CSF application for at least 4 d and cell apheresis. The angiograms obtained after cell transplantation and after 6 mo were analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography. RESULTS: We performed primary stenting and stem cell transplantion in 16 patients who received a BMS (n = 8) or an SES (n = 8). In 2 patients with a BMS, late stent thrombosis occurred after 58 d and 177 d, respectively. In the remaining patients, control angiography after 6 mo revealed in-stent restenosis of >50% in no patients with SES but in 4 patients with BMS (67%). Late lumen loss and in-stent plaque volume were significantly higher in patients with BMS compared with patients with SES. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMS, SES impair in-stent intima hyperplasia after stenting for acute myocardial infarction and transcoronary transplantation of G-CSF mobilized ASC. Copyright (c) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Significant reduction in restenosis after the use of sirolimus-eluting stents in the treatment of chronic total occlusions

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for the treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions (CTO). BACKGROUND: Long-term results after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of CTOs is hindered by a significant rate of restenosis and reocclusion. In the treatment of relatively simple nonocclusive lesions, SESs have shown dramatically reduced restenosis rates compared with bare metal stents (BMS), but whether these results are more widely applicable is unknown. METHODS: From April 2002, all patients at our institution were treated with SES as the device of choice during PCI. During the first six months, 563 patients were treated solely with SES, with treatment of a de novo CTO in 56 (9.9%). This CTO cohort was compared with a similar group of patients (n = 28) treated in the preceding six-month period with BMS. RESULTS: At one year, the cumulative survival-free of major adverse cardiac events was 96.4% in the SES group versus 82.8% in the BMS group, p < 0.05. At six-month follow-up, 33 (59%) patients in the SES group underwent angiography with a binary restenosis rate (>50% diameter stenosis) of 9.1% and in-stent late loss of 0.13 +/- 0.46 mm. One patient (3.0%) at follow-up was found to have reoccluded the target vessel. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SESs in the treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions is associated with a reduction in the rate of major adverse cardiac events and restenosis compared with BMS.     

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.     

Comparison of three-year clinical outcome of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the RESEARCH and T-SEARCH Registries)

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) recently proved to be superior to bare metal stents (BMSs) in decreasing the need for repeat revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at 1 year. Whether this also holds for paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) is currently unclear and the long-term relatively efficacy of the 2 drug-eluting stents is currently unknown. We investigated the 3-year efficacy of SESs and PESs versus BMSs in patients with STEMI. Primary angioplasty was performed in a consecutive group of 505 patients (BMSs in 183, SESs in 186, PESs in 136). At 3 years, the cumulative mortality rate was comparable in the 3 groups: 13.3% in the BMS group, 11.5% in the SES group, and 12.4% in the PES group (nonsignificant for all). The rate of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 12.0% in the BMS group compared with 8.0% and 7.7% in the SES and PES groups, respectively (p = 0.12 for BMS vs SES, 0.30 for BMS vs PES, 0.62 for SES vs PES). The cumulative incidence of death, MI, or TVR was 25.5% in the BMS group compared with 17.9% and 20.6% in the SES and PES groups, respectively (p = 0.06 for BMS vs SES, 0.32 for BMS vs PES, 0.45 for SES vs PES). Angiographic stent thrombosis occurred in 2.4% of all patients (BMS 1.6%, SES 2.7%, PES 2.9%). In conclusion, in this relatively small consecutive patient cohort, the use of SESs and PESs was no longer associated with significantly lower rates of TVR and major adverse cardiace events in patients with STEMI after 3 years of follow-up. A high frequency of stent thrombosis was observed in the 2 drug-eluting stent groups.     

Comparison of safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) are superior to bare metal stents (BMSs) for percutaneous coronary intervention, but data regarding SESs in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are limited. We investigated the clinical outcomes of patients with STEMI who were treated with SESs. We measured clinical characteristics and acute and long-term outcomes in 306 consecutive patients with STEMI who received a SES (n = 156) or a BMS (n = 150). Patients were followed for death, nonfatal reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization. Patients with SESs had a 0.6% in-hospital mortality rate versus 5.3% in patients with BMSs (p = 0.015). Six-month mortality rates were 1.9% (SES) and 10.1% (BMS, p = 0.003). At 6 months, patients with SESs were less likely to have target vessel revascularization (1.3% vs 8.1%, p = 0.005) and achieve the composite end point (3.2% vs 16.1%, p = 0.0001). No subacute thrombosis or clinical restenosis occurred in the SES group. Patients who received BMSs were older, received more stents, and had more myocardial damage, worse renal function, and lower ejection fractions than did those in the SES group. By multivariate discriminant analysis, stent type (SES vs BMS) was the most significant determinant of the 6-month composite end point (p = 0.01) and the need for target vessel revascularization (p = 0.02). In conclusion, SESs are safe and effective in STEMI at 6 months.     

Randomized double-blind comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent implantation in diseased saphenous vein grafts: six-month angiographic, intravascular ultrasound, and clinical follow-up of the RRISC Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare, in a randomized fashion, sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein grafts (SVGs). BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-eluting stents reduce restenosis and repeated revascularization in native coronary arteries compared with BMS. However, randomized data in SVG are absent. METHODS: Patients with SVG lesions were randomized to SES or BMS. All were scheduled to undergo 6-month coronary angiography. The primary end point was 6-month angiographic in-stent late lumen loss. Secondary end points included binary angiographic restenosis, neointimal volume by intravascular ultrasound and major adverse clinical events (death, myocardial infarction, target lesion, and vessel revascularization). RESULTS: A total of 75 patients with 96 lesions localized in 80 diseased SVGs were included: 38 patients received 60 SES for 47 lesions, whereas 37 patients received 54 BMS for 49 lesions. In-stent late loss was significantly reduced in SES (0.38 +/- 0.51 mm vs. 0.79 +/- 0.66 mm in BMS, p = 0.001). Binary in-stent and in-segment restenosis were reduced, 11.3% versus 30.6% (relative risk [RR] 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15 to 0.97, p = 0.024) and 13.6% versus 32.6% (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97, p = 0.031), respectively. Median neointimal volume was 1 mm(3) (interquartile range 0 to 13) in SES versus 24 (interquartile range 8 to 34) in BMS (p < 0.001). Target lesion and vessel revascularization rates were significantly reduced, 5.3% versus 21.6% (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.0, p = 0.047) and 5.3% versus 27% (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.83, p = 0.012), respectively. Death and myocardial infarction rates were not different. CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stents significantly reduce late loss in SVG as opposed to BMS. This is associated with a reduction in restenosis rate and repeated target lesion and vessel revascularization procedures. (The RRISC Study; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show; NCT00263263).     

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。     

A randomized comparison of sirolimus‐eluting versus bare metal stents in the treatment of diabetic patients with native coronary artery lesions: The DECODE study

Objective: To compare the effects of sirolimus‐eluting (SES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) on 6‐month in‐stent late luminal loss (LLL) and 1‐year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in diabetics undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Background: In studies of unselected patients, coronary restenosis rates have been lower with SES than with BMS. Comparisons of SES versus BMS in diabetics with more than one stenosis or more than one vessel disease are few. Methods: This open‐label trial randomly assigned 200 diabetics with de novo coronary artery stenoses to receive up to three SES versus BMS in a 2:1 ratio. The patients underwent repeat coronary angiography at 6 months after the index procedure and were followed‐up for 1 year. The primary study endpoint was in‐stent LLL at 6 months. Results: Between August 2002 and May 2004, 83 patients (mean age = 60 years) with 128 lesions (mean = 1.5 per patient) were enrolled at four U.S. and seven Asian medical centers. Enrollment was terminated early by the Safety Monitoring Board because of a statistically significant difference in rates of clinical endpoints. The mean in‐stent LLL at 6 months was 0.23 mm in SES versus 1.10 mm in BMS recipients (P < 0.001). At 12 months, 8 patients (15%) assigned to SES had experienced MACE versus 12 patients (41%) assigned to BMS (P = 0.006). Conclusions: In diabetics, the mean 6‐month in‐stent LLL was significantly smaller, and 12‐month MACE rate significantly lower, after myocardial revascularization with SES than with BMS. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

RESTEM: a percutaneous coronary intervention 'real world' registry in the drug-eluting stent era

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) reduce the rate of in-stent restenosis in selected cases. Their performance in more complex patients and their impact on the final clinical outcome of these patients, however, remains uncertain. RESTEM Registry (REgistro delle PCI in era di STEnt Medicati), a prospective multicenter registry collecting all percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed over 20 months and monitored up to 2 years, includes 5524 consecutive patients treated with bare metal stent (BMS) (72%), sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) (15%), combined BMS+SES (4%), or other techniques (9%). The combination of death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), unstable angina and revascularizations had been chosen as primary endpoint. One-year multivariate analysis shows no significant advantage of SES in combined clinical events, a slight benefit in primary endpoint [18.5 vs. 25.0% BMS=odds ratio (OR) 0.78) and revascularizations (13.6 vs. 20.4% BMS=OR 0.74], a consistent advantage when only target vessel revascularizations (TVRs) are considered (5.5 vs. 10.5% BMS=OR 0.52). The two-year adjusted results confirm a significant advantage of SES in TVR (8.3 vs. 13.7% BMS=OR 0.65), a slight benefit for revascularizations (18.3 vs. 25.6% BMS=OR 0.76), without reducing mortality and other clinical events; these data refute the benefit on primary endpoint observed at 12 months (25.8 vs. 32.4% BMS=OR 0.84). After analyzing events recorded during the first and second year follow-up periods separately, the incidence of many of them favors SES in the first year, yet appear independent of the technique utilized in the second. RESTEM results confirming SES's capacity to reduce TVR without reduction of other clinical events, suggest that this advantage is limited to the first year after PCI, and show no evidence of excess of deaths, AMIs and late thrombosis following SES implantation described in recent meta-analyses.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents inhibit neointimal hyperplasia in diabetic patients. Insights from the RAVEL Trial.

Patients with diabetes mellitus have less favourable outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than non-diabetics. We performed a subgroup analysis of the multicentre RAVEL trial to examine the impact of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) on outcomes in diabetic patients. The RAVEL study randomized 238 patients to treatment with either sirolimus-eluting or bare metal stents. Forty-four patients were diabetic; 19 received sirolimus-eluting stents and 25 were treated with bare metal stents. The differences in outcomes between diabetic and non-diabetic patients treated with SES (n=101) were also assessed. Follow-up angiography was performed at 6 months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) were analysed at 12-month follow-up. Six-month in-stent late lumen loss was significantly lower for the diabetic SES than the bare stent group (0.07+/-0.2 vs 0.82+/-0.5mm; P<0.001) and similar to that in non-diabetics treated with SES (-0.03+/-0.27mm). There was zero restenosis in the SES groups (diabetic and non-diabetic) compared to a 42% rate in the diabetic population assigned to bare metal stents (P=0.001). After 12 months, there was one non-Q-wave MI and one non-cardiac death in the diabetic SES group, while 12 patients in the bare metal stent group had MACE (one death, two MI, nine TLR) (P=0.01)-an event-free survival rate of 90% vs 52%, respectively (P<0.01). There were no TLRs in both SES groups compared to 36% rate in the diabetic bare metal stent group (P=0.007).Conclusion Diabetics treated with SES were associated with a virtual abolition of neointimal proliferation and low event rates at long-term follow-up.     

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.     

Long-term clinical outcomes with sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: five-year results of the RAVEL trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the clinical outcomes at 5 years in RAVEL (A Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Standard Stent for Coronary Revascularization), the first controlled trial of drug-eluting stents. BACKGROUND: The 6-month rate of angiographic coronary restenosis has been markedly lowered by sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). The long-term performance of drug-eluting stents, however, is under close scrutiny. METHODS: The trial included 238 patients (mean age 60.7 +/- 10.4 years, 76% men) with a single, de novo native coronary artery lesion, randomly assigned to treatment with SES versus bare-metal stents (BMS). Rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and percutaneous or surgical revascularization up to 5 years of follow-up, and rates of stent thrombosis were compared between the 2 treatment groups. RESULTS: Complete datasets were available in 92.5% of patients treated with SES and 89.1% of patients assigned to BMS. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year rates of survival free from target lesion revascularization (TLR) were, respectively, 99.2%, 93.8%, and 89.7% in the SES group versus 75.9%, 75.0%, and 74.0% in the control group (p < 0.001; log-rank). Rates of all MACE at 5 years were 25.8% in patients treated with SES versus 35.2% in patients assigned to BMS (p = 0.03; log-rank). Rates of stent thrombosis, per protocol or by the Academic Research Consortium definitions, were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year rate of TLR associated with SES was significantly lower than that with BMS. There was no apparent adverse effect associated with the use of SES, although the trial was not powered to examine uncommon complications.     

Ten-year survival of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents and bare-metal stents

IntroductionCompared to bare-metal stents (BMS), drug-eluting stents reduce stent restenosis and improve subsequent revascularization rates. The impact on patients’ survival has been the subject of debate.ObjectiveTo assess the long-term (10-year) survival of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in comparison with BMS.MethodsIn a single-center registry, 600 consecutive patients who underwent successful PCI with SES between April 2002 and February 2003 were compared to 594 patients who underwent PCI with BMS between January 2002 and April 2002, just before the introduction of SES. Clinical and procedural data were collected at the time of intervention and 10-year survival status was assessed via the national life status database.ResultsAll baseline characteristics were similar between groups except for smaller stent diameter (2.84±0.38 vs. 3.19±0.49 mm; p<0.001), greater stent length (18.50±8.2 vs. 15.96±6.10 mm; p<0.001) and higher number of stents per patient (1.95 vs. 1.46, p<0.001) in the SES group. Overall five- and 10-year all-cause mortality was 9.6% (n=110) and 22.7% (n=272), respectively. The adjusted HR for 10-year mortality in patients undergoing PCI with SES was 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.94; p=0.013), corresponding to a relative risk reduction of 19.8%. Other than PCI with BMS, older age, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lower ejection fraction were independent predictors of 10-year mortality.ConclusionTo date, this is the longest follow-up study ever showing a potential survival benefit of first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents, supporting prior observations on their sustained efficacy and safety relative to contemporary BMS.