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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Selective drug‐eluting stent implantation for high‐risk patients with acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: Rationale and safety

Background : A selective policy of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients at high risk of restenosis may maximize the benefit from restenosis reduction and minimize risk from late stent thrombosis (LaST). Objectives : We sought to prospectively determine the safety of selective DES implantation for long lesions (>20 mm), small vessels (<2.5 mm) and diabetic patients in patients with STEMI using a prospective single‐center registry. Methods : A total of 252 patients who underwent primary PCI between January 2005 and December 2006 were included: 126 consecutive patients receiving DES were compared with 126 age‐, sex‐, and vessel‐matched controls with STEMI who received bare‐metal stents. Composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (death, AMI, and target vessel revascularization) were used as the primary outcome measure. Results : Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics and outcomes were similar between groups except for the prespecified diabetes, lesion length, and maximum stent diameter. Long‐term outcomes at a median follow up of 34 ± 6 months showed significant reductions in reinfarction (2% vs. 11%, P = 0.03), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (10% vs. 24%, P = 0.02), and composite MACE (18% vs. 31%, P = 0.03) with DES, with no excess of death (9% vs. 7%, P = NS) or LaST (2% vs. 1%, P = NS). In a Cox multivariate model, clopidogrel cessation at long‐term follow‐up was the most powerful predictor of hierarchical MACE (HR: 5.165; 95%CI: 2.019–13.150, P = 0.001). Conclusions : Selective DES implantation in patients with high‐risk STEMI appears safe, and exposes fewer patients to the risk of LaST. A randomized comparison of selective versus routine DES use in patients with STEMI should be considered. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Efficacy and safety of a double‐coated paclitaxel‐eluting coronary stent: The EUCATAX trial

Objectives : The aim of this study was the comparison of a new double‐coated paclitaxel‐eluting coronary stent with bare‐metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background : Stent coating with biodegradable polymers as a platform for elution of drugs has the potential for complete elution of drugs and for decreasing the risk of late complications. Methods : Multicenter randomized trial comparing a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) coated with a biodegradable polymer and glycocalyx with the equivalent BMS. We randomly assigned 422 patients with de novo coronary lesions to PES (211 patients) or to BMS (211 patients). Primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Clinical secondary end points were target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis (ST), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Angiographic secondary end points were late loss and binary restenosis. Results : At 1 year of follow‐up, TVF rate was 9.5% in the PES group and 17.1% in the BMS group (P = 0.02), and MACE rate was 10% in PES and 19% in BMS arm (P = 0.009). All other secondary end points were reached but ST. ST rate was low and similar in both study arms. Conclusions : The study shows that patients treated with PES with dual coating technology had significantly lower incidence of TVF and MACE than those treated with BMS design; however, longer follow‐up should be necessary to assess true advantages of this technology compared with the previous one. © 2010 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.     

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.     

Long-term clinical outcome of thin-strut cobalt-chromium stents in the drug-eluting stent era: results of the COBALT (comparison of bare-metal stents in all-comers' lesion treatment) registry

Background: Despite widespread penetration of drug‐eluting stents (DES) in clinical practice, a relevant percentage of patients with coronary artery disease are still treated with bare‐metal stents (BMS). Contemporary BMS, however, are less well investigated and comparative data on clinical outcome are lacking. Methods and Results: This single‐center registry aimed to assess characteristics and outcome of patients treated with 2 different new‐generation cobalt‐chromium BMS, the MULTI‐LINK VISION and PRO‐Kinetic stents. During the study, adopted criteria for BMS selection were: (1) limited compliance to dual antiplatelet therapy, (2) ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (MI) or saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions, and (3) noncomplex lesions located either in the right coronary artery or in the nonproximal segments of the left coronary artery. During a 24‐month period 1,176 patients were treated with the VISION (n = 438) or PRO‐Kinetic stent (n = 738). Median duration of follow‐up was 549.5 and 528.5 days, respectively. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization were numerically lower in the VISION group (10.4 vs. 12.3% and 11.9 vs. 15.2%, P = 0.24 and 0.11). Death (4.1 vs. 4.3%, P = 0.85), MI (2 vs. 2.3%, P = 0.78), and ARC definite stent thrombosis (0.5 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.84) were similar. By multivariate analysis, variables associated with TLR were SVG interventions (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.26–3.86), total stent length (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.02), and smoking (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.05–2.16). Conclusion: In the DES era, the use of last‐generation thin‐strut BMS in selected patients is associated with acceptable clinical outcome, with similar clinical results for both the MULTI‐LINK VISION and PRO‐Kinetic stents. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:496–504)     

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.     

Safety and efficacy of drug‐eluting stent for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction in an unselected consecutive cohort

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the clinical outcome of a large cohort of patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with drug‐eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS). Background: Several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that PCI with the routine use of DES is safe and effective in patients with STEMI. However as randomized trials have strict inclusion criteria, further studies in unselected patient populations are needed. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the Mayo Clinic PCI database. A total of 552 consecutive STEMI patients who underwent a DES implantation between May 2003 and April 2006 were included in the study and compared to 557 who had BMS for STEMI earlier. No specific patient subsets were excluded. Results: Procedural success was achieved in 532 patients (96%). During initial hospitalization, 16 patients (2.9%) died and 8 (1.5%) suffered from a recurrent myocardial infarction. The median follow‐up was 23 months (IQR: 13–27 months). At 12 months post discharge, the rate of target lesion revascularization and death were 2.9% and 3.7%, respectively, and survival free of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 90.9%. These rates were similar to or lower than those of patients treated for STEMI with BMS prior to the availability of DES. Conclusion: DES are safe and effective in the treatment of STEMI in an unselected cohort; 90.9% of patients are free of MACE at 12 months post discharge. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.     

老年急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者应用国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架5年临床随访

目的评估老年急性ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)患者应用国产支架的长期安全性。方法入选年龄≥60岁的急性STEMI患者113例,随机分为国产雷帕霉素药物洗脱支架(DES)组56例和金属裸支架(BMS)组57例。随访5年,观察支架内血栓形成和主要心脏不良事件(MACE)发生率情况。结果 5年随访期间,DES组与BMS组病死率分别为7.1%和7.0%(P>0.05);DES组靶病变重建、MACE分别为10.7%、23.2%,BMS组分别为28.1%、42.1%(P<0.05)。DES组支架内血栓、极晚期支架内血栓发生率分别为8.9%、3.6%;BMS组分别为7.0%、1.8%,2组比较差异无统计学意义。结论老年急性STEMI患者应用国产雷帕霉素DES较BMS明显降低MACE,且极晚期血栓发生率无明显升高。     

Rationale and design of the Drug‐Eluting Stents vs Bare‐Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty (DIVA) Trial

VA Cooperative Studies Program #571 (DIVA) was designed to evaluate the efficacy of drug‐eluting stents (DES) for reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure when compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS) in participants undergoing stenting of de novo SVG lesions. Participants undergoing clinically indicated stenting of de novo SVG lesions were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to DES or BMS. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes mellitus and the number of target SVG lesions (1 vs ≥2) within each participating site. At sites that did not routinely administer 12‐months of dual antiplatelet therapy after SVG stenting participants without acute coronary syndromes received 1 month of open‐label clopidogrel, followed by 11 months of clopidogrel for those assigned to DES and 11 months of placebo for those assigned to BMS. The primary endpoint was the 12‐month incidence of target‐vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target‐vessel myocardial infarction, or target‐vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the incidence of other clinical endpoints and the incremental cost‐effectiveness of DES relative to BMS. Due to lower‐than‐anticipated target‐vessel failure rates, target enrollment was increased from 519 to 762. The study had randomized 599 participants when recruitment ended in December 2015. The DIVA trial will provide clarity on the appropriate stent type for de novo SVG lesions.     

Drug-eluting stents in the treatment of intermediate lesions: pooled analysis from four randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: To address the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of intermediate lesions, we performed a pooled analysis of four randomized DES versus bare-metal stent (BMS) trials and assessed outcomes among patients with intermediate lesions. BACKGROUND: Before the introduction of DES, intermediate coronary lesions were commonly managed based on physiologic or anatomic assessment of lesion severity. The DES may challenge this paradigm. METHODS: The study population involved 167 of 2,478 randomized patients (6.7%) with intermediate lesions (diameter stenosis <50% [mean 44%] by quantitative coronary angiography) from the Sirolimus-coated Bx Velocity Balloon Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients with De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions (SIRIUS), TAXUS-IV, and the First and Second First Use to Underscore Restenosis Reduction with Everolimus (FUTURE-I and -II) trials. End points examined included early (in-hospital and 30-day) and late (1-year) major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, and follow-up angiographic restenosis. RESULTS: Patients with intermediate lesions randomized to DES versus BMS had low rates of 30-day MACE (1.1% vs. 4.0% respectively; p = 0.22). At one-year follow-up, patients treated with DES versus BMS had similar rates of cardiac death (0% vs. 2.7%, respectively; p = 0.11) and MI (3.4% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.49) but markedly lower rates of TVR (3.4% vs. 20.3%; p = 0.0004), MACE (5.6% vs. 25.4%; p = 0.0003), and binary angiographic restenosis (1.8% vs. 34.0%; p < 0.0001). No patient in either group developed stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMS, treatment of intermediate lesions with DES appears safe and results in a marked reduction in clinical and angiographic restenosis. The efficacy of DES may require a reevaluation of current treatment paradigms for intermediate lesions.     

Long‐term clinical,angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound outcomes of biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents

Background: The residual drug carriers on drug‐eluting stents (DES) surfaces are considered to be one of the most significant reasons causing late thrombosis. There is no documented data currently available on the safety/benefit profile beyond 6 months of EXCEL stent, a novel sirolimus‐eluting stent with biodegradable polymer coating, in treating patients with coronary artery disease (CHD). Objective: To evaluate the long‐term efficacy and safety of EXCEL stent on treating CHD patients. Methods: Between February and March 2006, a consecutive cohort of complex patients treated with the EXCEL stent was prospectively enrolled in this single‐center registry. Antiplatelet protocol was 6‐month dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by aspirin alone indefinitely. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included in‐segment and in‐stent late lumen loss and binary restenosis rate measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) analysis at 8 months postindex PCI procedure. Results: A total of 100 patients with 153 lesions were included in this analysis. Most lesions (83.0%) were classified as complex (B2/C). At 12 months, four patients (4.0%) experienced MACE, which were four target‐lesion revascularizations due to in‐stent restenosis (ISR). All patients received follow‐up up to 24 ± 0.4 months and no cardiac death, MI, and in‐stent thrombosis occurred during the 6 months of dual antiplatelet therapy or the subsequent 15 months of aspirin treatment alone. QCA analysis of 112 lesions from 75 patients showed 3.6% (4/112) in‐stent lesion restenosis, 5.4% (6/112) in‐segment lesion restenosis, 0.12 ± 0.34 mm in‐stent late lumen loss, and 0.08 ± 0.35 mm in‐segment late lumen loss. Conclusions: In this single‐center experience with complex patients and lesions, the EXCEL^TM stent implantation with 6‐month dual antiplatelet treatment proved to markedly reduce the incidence of 24‐month ISR and MACE. These preliminary findings require further validation by large scale, randomized trials. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Predictors and variability of drug‐eluting vs bare‐metal stent selection in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the PRISM study

Drug‐eluting stents (DES ) reduce risk of in‐stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI ) but require dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT ) for a longer term than bare‐metal stents (BMS ). Few studies have examined clinical predictors of DES vs BMS , and variability in provider selection between DES and BMS in clinical practice has not been well described. These insights can inform our understanding of current practice and may identify opportunities to improve decision‐making stent selection decinsion‐making. In a multicenter registry, 3295 consecutive patients underwent PCI by 158 interventional cardiologists across 10 US sites. Eighty percent of patients with treated with DES. Using hierarchical regression, diabetes mellitus, multivessel disease, health insurance, and white race were independently associated with greater DES use, whereas increasing age, history of hypertension, anticipated surgery, use of warfarin, lower hemoglobin, prior history of bleeding, and treatment of right coronary and left circumflex artery lesions as compared with PCI of left anterior descending artery were associated with lower likelihood of receiving DES . Adjusted rates of DES use across providers varied from 52.3% to 94.6%, and adjusted median odds ratio for DES selection was 1.69. DES selection appeared to reflect physicians’ attempts to balance benefits of DES against risks of prolonged DAPT . Nevertheless, marked residual variability in DES selection across providers persisted after adjusting for predictors of restenosis, bleeding, and other factors. Further studies are needed to better understand drivers of this variability and identify the impact of patient and provider preferences on stent selection at the time of PCI .     

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.     

药物洗脱支架和金属裸支架治疗弥漫病变的比较研究

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

Long‐term outcomes of drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents in saphenous vein graft disease: Results from the Prairie “Real World” Stent Registry

Objectives:

This study was designed to compare long‐term clinical outcomes of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease in the “real world.”

Background:

The safety and efficacy of DES versus BMS in SVG remains uncertain due to contradictory reports of either lower revascularization rates with DES; or clinical equivalence to BMS; or even an excess of clinical events associated with DES use.

Methods:

We identified consecutive patients who underwent stent placement within a de novo SVG lesion between May 1, 2003 and July 31, 2007. Follow‐up was obtained at regular intervals. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to produce actuarial survival estimates. Cox regression analysis was used to predict the risk associated with stent type, and propensity scores were generated to risk‐adjust the results.

Results:

The study group included 379 stent recipients (284 DES; 95 BMS) with 410 stented lesions. BMS were placed more frequently in current smokers, acute myocardial infarctions, larger vessels, and longer lesions. In‐hospital mortality was higher in BMS recipients than in their DES counterparts (3.2% vs. 0, respectively; P = 0.015). At 3 years, there was no significant difference in clinical adverse event rates between DES and BMS recipients, even after risk adjustment.

Conclusions:

Three‐year adverse event rates are similar among patients treated with DES or BMS in SVG lesions. Therefore, while DES are safe, they do not appear to offer an advantage in terms of long‐term graft patency. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.