Comparison of short- and mid-term outcomes between CYPHER and TAXUS stents in patients with complex lesions of the coronary arteries

Background Drug-eluting stent （DES） could obviously reduce in-stent restenosis, which has been proved by international multi-center clinical trials. However, the types of the lesions for stenting were highly selected in these trials. Up to now, there has been no large scale study on the effect of DES in treating complex lesions in real world. Although REALITY trial was just reported during American College of Cardiology Congress 2005, the entry criteria for lesions were limited to one or two de novo lesions. This study was conducted to compare the short- and mid-term clinical outcomes between sirolimus-eluting stent （CYPHER stent） and paclitaxel-eluting stent （TAXUS stent） in patients with complex lesion. Methods This is a retrospective study. From April 2002 to June 2004, a total of 1061 patients were treated with DES in Fu Wai Hospital, of which, 611 patients （642 lesions with 698 CYPHER stents） were in CYPHER group, and 450 patients （534 lesions with 600 TAXUS stents） were in TAXUS group. There was no significant difference in clinical data and lesion types between CYPHER group and TAXUS group. Results Success rates of stent implantation were 99.2% and 98.8% in CYPHER and TAXUS stent groups respectively. The major adverse cardiac events （MACE） during in-hospital and 6-8-month follow-up were 0.7% and 2.3% in CYPHER stent group versus 1.3% and 3.2% in TAXUS stent group. There was no significant difference in MACE rate between these two groups. Restenosis rate was a little higher in TAXUS stent group than that in CYPHER stent group （14.0% vs 7.3%）, but there was no significant difference. The incidence of acute occlusion of side branch after implanting DES in main vessel was 6.9% in CYPHER group and 11.9% in TAXUS group （P〈0.05） . Conclusions CYPHER and TAXUS DES were safe and effective in patients with complex lesion. Clinical outcomes of CYPHER stent were better than TAXUS stent in bifurcation lesions. There was an increasing tendency in restenosis rate and late thrombosis in TAXUS group as compared with that of CYPHER group.     

Technical refinement for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesion is still demanding

Bifurcation lesions, one of the complex coronary lesion subsets, are usually encountered in around 15%-25% of patients during percutenous coronary intervention （PCI）. The treatment of stenoses at a bifurcation poses an ongoing challenge for the interventional cardiologists1-3 as PCI for bifurcation lesions is associated with the reduced procedural success rate and increased angiographic restenosis, especially in the side branch, or even portends a potentially negative impact on long-term clinical outcomes.4,5 The use of drug-eluting stents is generally recommended during bifurcation lesion intervention as it could result in a lower rate of main vessel restenosis. However, side branch ostial residual stenosis and stent thrombosis remain worrisome.6,7     

Long-term outcomes following drug-eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main bifurcation lesions

Background The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents （DES） implantation in unprotected left main （LM） bifurcation lesions has yet to be determined. The aim of the present report was to evaluate the long-term outcome following implantation of DES in unprotected LM bifurcation lesions. Methods We identified 70 consecutive patients treated with DES in unprotected LM bifurcation lesions from April 2003 to January 2005. Of them, 42 patients were treated with sirolimus-eluting stent （SES） and 28 patients were treated with paclitaxel-eluting stent （PES）. Results Stents to the left anterior descending and to the circumflex were implanted in 62 patients. During 1-year follow-up, 3 （4.3%） patients died of cardiac causes. One of them had myocardial infarction and adjudicated as possibly due to stent thrombosis. Angiographic follow-up was available in 80% of patients. The per lesion restenosis rate was 13.4% in the entire cohort, of which 10.7% occurred in lesions treated with SES and 16.1% in those treated with PES （P=0.58）. All restenosis was focal and occurred in the lesions treated with a stent with stent size to post-procedural reference vessel diameter ratio 〈1.0 （17.6% vs 0, P=0.04）. The per patient target lesion revascularization rate at 1 year was 17.1%. One year survival free from major adverse cardiac events was 77.1%. Conclusions Treatment of LM bifurcation lesions using DES is a safe and feasible way with a low one-year mortality. The need for revascularization in 17% of patients demands for improvement.     

Crush stenting in treating coronary bifurcate lesions: paclitaxel eluting stents versus sirolimus eluting stents

Background Because no data regarding the comparison of crush stenting with paclitaxel （PES） or sirolimus eluting stents （SES） for coronary bifurcate lesions have been reported, we compared the clinical outcomes of these two types of stents. Methods Two hundred and thirty patients with 242 bifurcate lesions were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized trial Primary endpoints included myocardial infarction, cardiac death and target vessel revascularization at 8 months. Results All patients were followed up clinically and 82% angiographically at 8 months. Final kissing balloon inflation was performed in 72% in the PES and 75% in the SES groups （P〉0.05）. Compared to the SES group, PES group had a higher late loss and incidence of restenosis （P=0.04） in the prebifurcation vessel segment. The postbifurcation vessel segment in the PES group had a greater late loss （（0.7±0.6） mm vs （0.3±0.4） mm, P〈0.001） and higher restenosis in the side branch （25.5% vs 15.6%, P=0.04） when compared to the SES group. There was significant difference of insegment restenosis in the entire main vessel between PES and SES groups （P=0.004）. Target lesion revascularization was more frequently seen in the PES group as compared to the SES group （P=0.01）. There was significant difference in the accumulative MACE between these two groups （P=-0.01）. The survival rate free from target lesion revascularization was significantly higher in the SES group when compared to the PES group （P〈0.001）. Conclusion SES is superior to PES in reducing restenosis and target lesion revascularization by 8-month follow-up after crush stenting for bifurcate lesions.     

Firebird and Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents and bare metal stents in treatment of very long coronary lesions

Background As a kind of sirolimus-eluting stent （SES） made in China, Firebird SES is more effective than bare metal stent （BMS） and not inferior to Cypher SES for short coronary lesions in terms of reduction of restenosis and revascularization. However, Firebird SES does not show any benefits in patients with a very long coronary lesion （VLCL）. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Firebird SES for VLCL by comparison of Cypher SES and BMS. Methods In this prospective, nonrandomized and comparative study, eligible patients with de novo coronary lesion （≥ 30 mm） between January 2005 and June 2006 were allocated into Firebird SES group, Cypher SES group or BMS group. They were subjected to an angiographic follow-up of 6 months and a clinical follow-up of 12 months. The primary endpoints constitute the in-stent and in-segment restenosis rates at 6 months. The secondary endpoint was defined as a major adverse cardiovascular event （MACE） that was a 12-month combined endpoint of all-cause deaths, reinfarction or in-stent thrombosis, and target-lesion revascularization. The 12-month in-stent thrombosis was also evaluated to address the safety of Firebird SES implantation exceptionally. Results A total of 468 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of 113 patients who were finally included according to the prior inclusion and exclusion criteria, 39 （41 lesions） were treated with Firebird SES, 37 （39 lesions） with Cypher SES, and 37 （37 lesions） with BMS. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the three groups; but there were longer lesions, more frequent use of overlapping stent in the Firebird SES group and the Cypher SES group. Angiographic follow-up showed that the rates of binary stenosis were similar between the Firebird SES group and the Cypher SES group （in-segment： 14.6% vs 12.8%, relative risk （RR）1.14, P=0.81; in-stent： 9.8% vs 10.3%, RR 0.95, P=0.94）, and significantly lower than those in the B     

Comparison of drug eluting stents with bare metal stents in daily practice for bifurcation lesions in Chinese patients

Background Recently, numerous randomized and controlled trials have demonstrated great advantages of drug eluting stents (DES) with respect to significant reduction of restenosis and recurrence of symptoms and improvement of clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Little is known about the comparative effects between DES and bare metal stents (BMS) for bifurcation angioplasty in the Chinese population. We compared the inpatient and 7-month follow-up outcomes between DES and BMS for the treatment of bifurcation lesions. Methods From April 2004 to October 2005, 291 Chinese patients [85.9% male, mean age (57.8±10.4) years] underwent DES (387 lesions) and/or BMS (297 lesions) implantation for bifurcation lesions. Clinical and angiographic follow-up was performed at 7 months. Results Compared with BMS group, patients in DES group had significantly lower rates of restenosis at main branch (9.5% vs 28.7%, P < 0.001) or side branch (14.5% vs 37.0%, P < 0.001) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (14.0% vs 26.3%, P = 0.000). The occurrence rate of late in-stent thrombosis did not differ between the two groups in both main (0.8% vs 0, P = 0.224) and side branches (1.4% vs 0, P = 0.198). Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was less frequent in DES group for main branch (8.3% vs 21.3%, P < 0.001) and for side branch (7.6% vs 23.5%, P < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that total stent length (OR = 1.029, P = 0.01), postprocedural in-stent minimum lumen diameter (OR = 0.476, P = 0.03) and stent type (OR = 3.988, P = 0.0001) were independent predictors of TLR for main branch. Prior history of coronary intervention (OR = 2.424, P = 0.041), angulated lesion (OR = 2.337, P = 0.033), postdilation (OR = 0.267, P = 0.035) and stent type (DES vs BMS, OR = 5.459, P = 0.000) were independent predictors of TLR for side branch. Conclusion The implantation of DES may be associated with greater reduction of restenosis and TLR than BMS in bifurcations angioplasty.     

Efficacy and safety of Firebird sirolimus-eluting stent in treatment of complex coronary lesions in Chinese patients: one-year clinical and eight-month angiographic outcomes from the FIREMAN registry

Background  Off-label application of drug-eluting stents (DES) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not uncommon in daily practice, however DES in treating Chinese patients with complex lesion subset was under-investigated. The primary objective of the FIREMAN registry was to evaluate the long term efficacy and safety of the Firebird sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in treating patients with complex coronary lesions. Here we report the mid-term of one-year clinical outcomes and eight-month angiographic follow-up results of FIREMAN registry. 

Methods  The FIREMAN registry was a prospective multi-center registry, which included 1029 consecutive patients undergoing PCI with Firebird SES implantation between September 2006 and July 2007 in 45 centers in China. The clinical follow-up was designed to be performed at 1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months post index procedure, and non-mandatory angiographic follow-up at 8 months was planned. One hundred percent site monitoring was conducted.

Results  Long lesions (59.2%), multi-vessel disease (50.4%), and small vessel disease (31.6%) were mostly found in angiography. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) occurred in 51 (5.1%) patients at 1 year clinical follow-up, including cardiac mortality in 6 (0.6%), non-fatal myocardial infarction in 11 (1.1%), and target lesion revascularization in 36 (3.5%) of the patients. Definite and probable stent thrombosis (ST) by Academic Research Consortium (ARC) definition occurred in 12 (1.36%) patients at one-year clinical follow-up. The 8-month binary restenosis rate was 5.7% in-segment and 4.3% in-stent, respectively. Late lumen loss was (0.21±0.40) mm in-segment and (0.23±0.36) mm in-stent, respectively. Furthermore, Cox regression analysis revealed that diabetes, small vessel diameter, and chronic total occlusion were independent predictors of ST.

Conclusions  The results showed that the Firebird SES was effective and safe in treating Chinese patients with complex coronary lesions and occurrence of ST rate at one-year clinical follow-up was acceptable, however further long-term follow-up was still necessary. (NCT00552656)

     

Firebird sirolimus eluting stent versus bare mental stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Background There are few evidences about the value of drug eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI）. We prospectively designed a randomized controlled trial to compare the safety and efficacy of Firebird sirolimus eluting stent （Firebird stent） and bare metal stent （BMS）. Methods Patients with STEMI enrolled during one year period were randomized to undergo implantation of Firebird stent or BMS, and clinical and angiographic follow-up. The primary endpoint of the present study was in-lesion late lumen loss （LLL） at 6 months, and secondary endpoint includes stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events （MACE） at 6 months. Results During one year period, 156 patients were randomized into the Firebird stent group （101 patients with an average age of 57.8 years） or the BMS group （55 patients with 59.7 years on average）. Six-month angiographic follow-up was available in 66.3% and 63.7% of patients assigned to Firebird stent and BMS, respectively. At 6-month follow-up, mortality, target vessel revascularization （TVR） and MACE were 2.0%, 6.9% and 9.9% in the Firebird stent group, while 3.6%, 30.9% and 36.4% in the BMS group （P〈0.05）. Subacute thrombosis occurred in 1 patient in both groups, respectively. The mean LLL was 0.18 mm in the Firebird stent group versus 0.72 mm in the BMS group. Conclusion Implantation of Firebird sirolimus eluting stent for STEMI may greatly reduce TVR and MACE at 6 months with low incidence of acute/subacute stent thrombosis compared with BMS.     

Midterm outcomes of prospective, randomized, single-center study of the Janus tacrolimus-eluting stent for treatment of native coronary artery lesions

Background Long-term efficacy and safety of tacrolimus-eluting stent （Janus） for treatment of coronary artery disease in percutaneous coronary interventions （PCI） ＂real wodd＂ is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Janus stent for treating coronary heart disease in PCI daily practice, the safety of 4-month clopidogrel therapy after Janus stent implantation and the feasibility for treating patients with acute myocardial infarction （AMI） for first time. Methods From February 20, 2006 to August 26, 2006, a total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either Janus stent （n=100） or bare metal stent （Tecnic Carbostent, n=100）. All patients were administered with clopidogrel for 4 months and aspirin for life long after stenting. Results Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable between the two groups. AMI was present in 37% of patients with Janus and 36% with Tecnic Carbostent. At an average of 246-day follow-up, major adverse cardiac events （MACE） was 6% with the Janus stent and 15% with the Tecnic Carbostent （P=0.038）. Primary events included 1 cardiac death, 1 myocardial infarction （MI） due to subacute stent thrombosis and 13 target lesion revasculadzations （TLR） due to restenosis in patients with Tecnic Carbostent and 6 TLR due to restenosis in patients with Janus stent. Although all patients had discontinued clopidogrel for an average of 126 days, there was no additional thrombotic event in the two groups. Conclusions Janus stent is efficient in reducing MACE compared with Tecnic Carbostent at an average of 8-month follow-up. Discontinuation of clopidogrel at 4 months after PCI is safe for patients with Janus stent, including AMI patients Long-term efficacy of Janus stent in reducing restenosis requires further study.     

Mechanisms and clinical significance of quality of final kissing balloon inflation in patients with true bifurcation lesions treated by crush stenting technique

Background The mechanisms responsible for the occurrence of a kissing unsatisfied （KUS） result after classical crush stenting remain unclear. The present study aimed at analyzing the mechanisms and clinical significance of KUS. Methods Two hundred and thirteen patients with true bifurcation lesions treated with classical crush stenting and final kissing balloon inflation （FKBI） were assigned to upper, middle, and lower groups according to the position of the side branch re-wiring assessed by visual estimation, quantitative coronary analysis （QCA） and intravascular ultrasound （IVUS）. Angiographic follow-up was indexed at 12 months. Results The upper group was characterized by a larger bifurcation angle of 55.53°±25.25° （P=0,030） and a longer procedural time （42.43±23.92） minutes （P=0.015）. The overall rate of KUS by visual estimation was 10.48%, with 5.4% in the upper group, 3.9% in middle group, and 36.1% in lower group （P 〈0.001）. For the diagnosis of KUS, visual inspection demonstrated a good correlation with both QCA and IVUS. Smaller stent diameter was the main reason for KUS in the upper group, while extra-stent side wire location, or re-wire in a low position was the main mechanism attributed to KUS in the lower group. The Lower group had more restenosis, with most restenotic lesions at a lower position of the side branch ostium. KUS （HR 1.652, 95% Cl 1.332-2.088, P 〈0.001） and re-wiring position （HR 2.341, 95% Cl 1.780-4.329, P 〈0.001） were two independent predictors of side branch restenosis. Re-wiring position （OR 0.458, 95%C/0.336-0.874, P=0.001） and side stent expansion （OR 3.122, 95%C/2.883-5.061, P=0.014） were factors predicting the findings of KUS. Conclusions Side wire outside side stents resulted in more KUS and restenosis. Different restenotic lesion types reflected individual mechanisms contributing to the development of plaque proliferation.     

Novel side branch ostial stent (BIGUARDTTM): first-in-man study

Background Stenting a bifurcation lesion is technically challenging. No study has reported the clinical outcome of a dedicated bifurcation stent in China. We aimed to analyze the safety and clinical outcome of a novel side branch ostial stent (BIGUARDTM) stent in treating coronary bifurcation lesions.Methods Forty-seven patients were enrolled in this first-in-man study, with 61.7% true bifurcation lesions (0,1,1 and 1,1,1) and 26.7% diabetes. A two-stent technique was used in 27.6% of the patients, and 64.7% of patients crossed from the one-stent technique to the two-stent arm. Clinical and angiographic follow-up data at 12 months were available in all the 47 patients and in 43 patients (91.9%), respectively. The study endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months.Results Only one patient had a non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, which led to 2% of the in-hospital composite MACE. Notably, the target lesion revascularization at 12 months was 8.6%, with a 10.6% composite MACE at 12 months. Neither cardiac death nor stent thrombosis was seen during the follow-up. By quantitative coronary analysis, the restenosis rate at the main vessel and ostium of the side branch was 9.4% and 2.1%, respectively. Four of 12 patients (33.3%) treated with one-stent and kissing balloon inflation had restenosis in the main vessel.Conclusion BIGUARDTM stent was safe and feasible in treatment of bifurcation lesions.     

Hemodynamic change in wall shear stress in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated by double kissing crush or single-stent technique

Background  Fluid dynamic mechanisms attributed to coronary bifurcation lesions remain a subject of study. The present study aimed at investigating the hemodynamic change of wall shear stress (WSS) in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated by double kissing (DK) crush or one-stent with final kissing balloon inflation (FKBI).

Methods  Eighty-one patients with bifurcation lesions treated by stenting who had 3-D model reconstruction were studied. The bifurcation vessels were divided into main vessel (MV), main branch (MB), side branch (SB), and polygon of confluence (POC). MB and SB were classified by internal- and lateral-subsegments, respectively.

Results  The baseline magnitude of WSS in proximal MV, POC-MV, POC-MB, POC-SB and MB-internal segments increased significantly, compared to MB-lateral, SB-internal and SB-lateral. DK crush had the potential of uniformly reducing WSS, turbulent index and the WSS gradient. The WSS value at the POC-SB and SB in the one-stent group remained higher. The turbulent index and WSS gradient between the POC-SB minus the SB-lateral had equal predictive values for in-stent restenosis (ISR).

Conclusion  Fluid dynamic results favor the use of DK crush over the one-stent technique.

     

Sirolimus-eluting stent or paclitaxel-eluting stent vs balloon angioplasty for prevention of recurrences in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis: a randomized controlled trial

Context  In patients with de novo coronary lesions, drug-eluting stents have drastically reduced restenosis risk compared with bare metal stents and conventional balloon angioplasty. It is less clear whether drug-eluting stents are superior to conventional balloon angioplasty for the treatment of patients with in-stent restenosis. Objectives  To assess if drug-eluting stents are a more effective treatment of in-stent restenosis than conventional balloon angioplasty, and to assess the relative merits of 2 drug-eluting stents, a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent. Design, Setting, and Participants  Randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial conducted among 300 patients with angiographically significant in-stent restenosis in 2 tertiary German centers from June 1, 2003, to October 20, 2003. Interventions  After pretreatment with 600 mg of clopidogrel for at least 2 hours before intervention, all patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: sirolimus stent, paclitaxel stent, or balloon angioplasty (100 patients in each group). Main Outcome Measures  Primary end point: angiographic restenosis (diameter stenosis 50%) at 6-month follow-up angiography based on "in-segment" analysis. Primary analysis was comparison between stent groups and balloon angioplasty groups; a secondary analysis compared sirolimus and paclitaxel stents. Results  Follow-up angiography was performed in 275 (92%) of 300 patients. The incidence of angiographic restenosis was 44.6% (41/92) in the balloon angioplasty group, 14.3% (13/91) in the sirolimus stent group (P<.001 vs balloon angioplasty), and 21.7% (20/92) in the paclitaxel stent group (P = .001 vs balloon angioplasty). When compared with balloon angioplasty, receiving a sirolimus stent had a relative risk (RR) of angiographic restenosis of 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-0.56); a paclitaxel stent had an RR of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.31-0.76). The incidence of target vessel revascularization was 33.0% (33/100) in the balloon angioplasty group, 8.0% (8/100) in the sirolimus stent group (P<.001 vs balloon angioplasty), and 19.0% (19/100) in the paclitaxel stent group (P = .02 vs balloon angioplasty). The secondary analysis showed a trend toward a lower rate of angiographic restenosis (P = .19) and a significantly lower rate of target vessel revascularization (P = .02) among sirolimus stent patients compared with paclitaxel stent patients. Conclusions  In patients with in-stent restenosis, a strategy based on sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents is superior to conventional balloon angioplasty for the prevention of recurrent restenosis. Sirolimus-eluting stents may be superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents for treatment of this disorder.      

Sirolimus-eluting vs uncoated stents for prevention of restenosis in small coronary arteries: a randomized trial

Context  Percutaneous coronary revascularization of small vessels is associated with a high restenosis rate. Sirolimus-eluting stents reduce restenosis in simple and previously untreated lesions of large coronary arteries, but their outcomes in small vessels have not been adequately investigated. Objective  To determine whether sirolimus-eluting stents are associated with a reduced 8-month rate of angiographic restenosis in comparison with an uncoated stent. Design, Setting, and Patients  This was a randomized, multicenter, single-blind, prospective trial performed with 257 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization for ischemic heart disease, and who had a previously untreated atherosclerotic lesion located in a small segment with a diameter of 2.75 mm or less, in 20 Italian centers between August 2002 and December 2003. Intervention  Patients were randomly assigned to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent (129 patients) or an uncoated stent having an identical architecture and radiographic appearance (128 patients). Main Outcome Measures  The primary end point was the 8-month binary in-segment restenosis rate; secondary end points included procedural success and the 8-month rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Results  The mean (SD) reference diameter of the treated segment was 2.2 (0.28) mm; the lesion length, 11.84 (6.15) mm. After 8 months, the binary in-segment restenosis rate was 53.1% (60/113) in the patients receiving an uncoated stent and 9.8% (12/123) in those receiving a sirolimus-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.32; P<.001). Fewer patients randomized to sirolimus-eluting stents experienced major adverse cardiac events (12/129 [9.3%] vs 40/128 [31.3%]; RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15-0.55; P<.001) mainly because of a reduction in target lesion revascularization (9/129 [7%] vs 27/128 [21.1%]; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14-0.70; P = .002) and myocardial infarction (2/129 [1.6%] vs 10/129 [7.8%]; RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.01-0.93; P = .04). Conclusion  The use of sirolimus-eluting stents to treat atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries reduces restenosis and may also reduce major adverse cardiac events.      

Incidence, predictors, and outcome of thrombosis after successful implantation of drug-eluting stents

Context  Traditionally, stent thrombosis has been regarded as a complication of percutaneous coronary interventions during the first 30 postprocedural days. However, delayed endothelialization associated with the implantation of drug-eluting stents may extend the risk of thrombosis beyond 30 days. Data are limited regarding the risks and the impact of this phenomenon outside clinical trials. Objective  To evaluate the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcome of stent thrombosis after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Patients  Prospective observational cohort study conducted at 1 academic hospital and 2 community hospitals in Germany and Italy. A total of 2229 consecutive patients underwent successful implantation of sirolimus-eluting (1062 patients, 1996 lesions, 2272 stents) or paclitaxel-eluting (1167 patients, 1801 lesions, 2223 stents) stents between April 2002 and January 2004. Interventions  Implantation of a drug-eluting stent (sirolimus or paclitaxel). All patients were pretreated with ticlopidine or clopidogrel and aspirin. Aspirin was continued indefinitely and clopidogrel or ticlopidine for at least 3 months after sirolimus-eluting and for at least 6 months after paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation. Main Outcome Measures  Subacute thrombosis (from procedure end through 30 days), late thrombosis (>30 days), and cumulative stent thrombosis. Results  At 9-month follow-up, 29 patients (1.3%) had stent thrombosis (9 [0.8%] with sirolimus and 20 [1.7%] with paclitaxel; P = .09). Fourteen patients had subacute thrombosis (0.6%) and 15 patients had late thrombosis (0.7%). Among these 29 patients, 13 died (case fatality rate, 45%). Independent predictors of stent thrombosis were premature antiplatelet therapy discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR],  89.78; 95% CI, 29.90-269.60; P<.001), renal failure (HR,  6.49; 95% CI, 2.60-16.15; P<.001), bifurcation lesions (HR,  6.42; 95% CI, 2.93-14.07; P<.001), diabetes (HR,  3.71; 95% CI, 1.74-7.89; P = .001), and a lower ejection fraction (HR,  1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.36; P<.001 for each 10% decrease). Conclusions  The cumulative incidence of stent thrombosis 9 months after successful drug-eluting stent implantation in consecutive "real-world" patients was substantially higher than the rate reported in clinical trials. Premature antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, renal failure, bifurcation lesions, diabetes, and low ejection fraction were identified as predictors of thrombotic events.      

Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial

Context  Compared with bare metal stents, sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents have been shown to markedly improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary revascularization, but their performance in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions has not been compared in a prospective multicenter study. Objective  To compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. Design  Prospective, randomized comparative trial (the REALITY trial) conducted between August 2003 and February 2004, with angiographic follow-up at 8 months and clinical follow-up at 12 months. Setting  Ninety hospitals in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Patients  A total of 1386 patients (mean age, 62.6 years; 73.1% men; 28.0% with diabetes) with angina pectoris and 1 or 2 de novo lesions (2.25-3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteries. Intervention  Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 701) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 685). Main Outcome Measures  The primary end point was in-lesion binary restenosis (presence of a more than 50% luminal-diameter stenosis) at 8 months. Secondary end points included 1-year rates of target lesion and vessel revascularization and a composite end point of cardiac death, Q-wave or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or repeat target lesion revascularization. Results  In-lesion binary restenosis at 8 months occurred in 86 patients (9.6%) with a sirolimus-eluting stent vs 95 (11.1%) with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.17; P = .31). For sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents, respectively, the mean (SD) in-stent late loss was 0.09 (0.43) mm vs 0.31 (0.44) mm (difference, –0.22 mm; 95% CI, –0.26 to –0.18 mm; P<.001), mean (SD) in-stent diameter stenosis was 23.1% (16.6%) vs 26.7% (15.8%) (difference, –3.60%; 95% CI, –5.12% to –2.08%; P<.001), and the number of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year was 73 (10.7%) vs 76 (11.4%) (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; P = .73). Conclusion  In this trial comparing sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents, there were no differences in the rates of binary restenosis or major adverse cardiac events. Clinical Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00235092      

Experimental studies on imaging of infected site with 99mTc-labeled ciprofloxacin in mice

Background Bacterial infection can pose a substantial diagnostic dilemma. 99m^Tc-labeled ciprofloxacin （CPF） was developed as a biologically active radiopharmaceutical to diagnose infection. In the present research, we studied the biodistribution and imaging properties of infection tracer 99m^Tc-CPF in a mouse model of infection. Methods CPF was labeled with 99m^Tc and the radiochemical purity and labeling rate were measured. A mouse model of infection was established. We then determined the biodistribution of 99m^Tc-CPF and conducted the whole body scintigraphy of the animal model. Results 99m^Tc-Ciprotech was stable for at least 6 hours at room temperature. The labeling rate of CPF by 99m^Tc was over 90%. Clearance of radioactivity mainly occurred in the liver and kidney, and the clearance from blood was rapid. Both biodistribution and imaging results showed higher uptake of 99m^Tc-CPF at sites of infection. The infectious tissue/normal tissue ratio peak was 4.30 at 4 hours after injection. Conclusions 99m^Tc-CPF is a sensitive radiopharmaceutical for scintigraphy of infectious lesions and it is easy to prepare.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents vs vascular brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis within bare-metal stents: the SISR randomized trial

Context  Although vascular brachytherapy is the only approved therapy for restenosis following bare-metal stent implantation, drug-eluting stents are now being used. Data on the relative merits of each are limited. Objective  To determine the safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of patients with restenosis within a bare-metal stent. Design, Setting, and Patients  Prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of 384 patients with in-stent restenosis who were enrolled between February 2003 and July 2004 at 26 academic and community medical centers. Data presented represent all follow-up as of June 30, 2005. Interventions  Vascular brachytherapy (n = 125) or the sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 259). Main Outcome Measure  Target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months postprocedure. Results  Baseline patient characteristics were well matched. Lesion length was similar between vascular brachytherapy and sirolimus-eluting stent patients (mean [SD], 16.76 [8.55] mm vs 17.22 [7.97] mm, respectively; P = .61). Procedural success was 99.2% (124/125) in the vascular brachytherapy group and 97.3% (250/257) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (P = .28). The rate of target vessel failure was 21.6% (27/125) with vascular brachytherapy and 12.4% (32/259) with the sirolimus-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.8; P = .02). Target lesion revascularization was required in 19.2% (24/125) of the vascular brachytherapy group and 8.5% (22/259) of the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.3-3.9]; P = .004). At follow-up angiography, the rate of binary angiographic restenosis for the analysis segment was 29.5% (31/105) for the vascular brachytherapy group and 19.8% (45/227) for the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.2]; P = .07). Compared with the vascular brachytherapy group, minimal lumen diameter was larger in the sirolimus-eluting stent group at 6-month follow-up (mean [SD], 1.52 [0.63] mm vs 1.80 [0.63] mm; P<.001), reflecting greater net lumen gain in the analysis segment (0.68 [0.60] vs 1.0 [0.61] mm; P<.001) due to stenting and no edge restenosis. Conclusion  Sirolimus-eluting stents result in superior clinical and angiographic outcomes compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of restenosis within a bare-metal stent. Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00231257      

Comparison of a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent with a bare metal stent in patients with complex coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial

Context  Compared with bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis in noncomplex lesions. The utility of drug-eluting stents has not been evaluated in more difficult stenoses. Objective  To investigate the safety and efficacy of the polymer-based, slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent in a patient population with more complex lesions than previously studied. Design, Setting, and Patients  Prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter randomized trial conducted from February 2003 to March 2004 at 66 academic and community-based institutions with 1156 patients who underwent stent implantation in a single coronary artery stenosis (vessel diameter, 2.25-4.0 mm; lesion length, 10-46 mm), including 664 patients (57.4%) with complex or previously unstudied lesions (requiring 2.25-mm, 4.0-mm, and/or multiple stents) and 9-month clinical and angiographic follow-up. Interventions  Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 or more bare metal stents (n = 579) or identical-appearing paclitaxel-eluting stents (n = 577). Main Outcome Measure  Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 9 months. Results  Baseline characteristics were well matched. Diabetes was present in 31% of patients. The mean (SD) reference vessel diameter was 2.69 (0.57) mm, the reference lesion length was 17.2 (9.2) mm, and 78% of lesions were type B₂/C. A mean (SD) of 1.38 (0.58) stents (total mean [SD] length, 28.4 [13.1] mm) were implanted per lesion; 33% of lesions required multiple stents. Stents that were 2.25 mm and 4.0 mm in diameter were used in 18% and 17% of lesions, respectively. Compared with bare metal stents, paclitaxel-eluting stents reduced the 9-month rate of target lesion revascularization from 15.7% to 8.6% (P<.001) and target vessel revascularization from 17.3% to 12.1% (P = .02). Similar rates were observed for cardiac death or myocardial infarction (5.5% for bare metal stent group vs 5.7% for paclitaxel-eluting stent group) and stent thrombosis (0.7% in both groups). Angiographic restenosis was reduced from 33.9% to 18.9% in the entire study cohort (P<.001), including among patients receiving 2.25-mm stents (49.4% vs 31.2%; P = .01), 4.0-mm stents (14.4% vs 3.5%; P = .02), and multiple stents (57.8% vs 27.2%; P<.001). Conclusion  Compared with a bare metal stent, implantation of the paclitaxel-eluting stent in a patient population with complex lesions effectively reduces clinical and angiographic restenosis.      

Sirolimus-eluting stents vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: meta-analysis of randomized trials

Context  Placement of sirolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents has emerged as the predominant percutaneous treatment strategy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Whether there are any differences in efficacy and safety between these 2 drug-eluting stents is unclear. Objective  To compare outcomes of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents on the basis of data generated by randomized head-to-head clinical trials. Data Sources  PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings from major cardiology meetings, and Internet-based sources of information on clinical trials in cardiology from January 2003 to April 2005. Study Selection  Randomized trials comparing the sirolimus-eluting stent with the paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with CAD reporting the outcomes of interest (target lesion revascularization, angiographic restenosis, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction [MI], death, and the composite of death or MI) during a follow-up of at least 6 months. Data Extraction  Two reviewers independently identified studies and abstracted data on sample size, baseline characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Data Synthesis  Six trials, including 3669 patients, met the selection criteria. No significant heterogeneity was found across trials. Target lesion revascularization, the primary outcome of interest, was less frequently performed in patients who were treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (5.1%) vs the paclitaxel-eluting stent (7.8%) (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84; P = .001). Similarly, angiographic restenosis was less frequently observed among patients assigned to the sirolimus-eluting stent (9.3%) vs the paclitaxel-eluting stent (13.1%) (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.86; P = .001). Event rates for sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting stents were 0.9% and 1.1%, respectively, for stent thrombosis (P = .62); 1.4% and 1.6%, respectively, for death (P = .56); and 4.9% and 5.8%, respectively, for the composite of death or MI (P = .23). Conclusions  Patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents had a significantly lower risk of restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared with those receiving paclitaxel-eluting stents. Rates of death, death or MI, and stent thrombosis were similar.