Oral rapamycin after coronary bare-metal stent implantation to prevent restenosis: the Prospective, Randomized Oral Rapamycin in Argentina (ORAR II) Study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the role of oral rapamycin in decreased restenosis after bare metal stent implantation. BACKGROUND: Small observational studies suggest that the administration of oral rapamycin reduces angiographic restenosis after bare metal stent implantation. METHODS: Between September 2003 and September 2004, 100 patients were randomized to either oral rapamycin (6-mg loading dose given 2.7 h before intervention followed by 3 mg/day for 14 days) plus diltiazem 180 mg/day or no therapy after the implantation of a coronary bare metal stent design. The primary study end point was incidence of angiographic binary restenosis and late loss at nine months. The secondary end points were target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year. RESULTS: Angiographic follow-up was completed in 87% of patients. In the rapamycin group, the drug was well tolerated (26% minor side effects) and was maintained in 96% of patients. At 9 months, the in-segment binary restenosis was reduced by 72% (11.6% rapamycin vs. 42.8% no-therapy group, p = 0.001) and the in-stent binary restenosis was reduced by 65% (12% rapamycin vs. 34.6% no-therapy group, p = 0.009). The in-segment late loss was also significantly reduced with oral therapy (0.66 vs. 1.13 mm, respectively; 43% reduction, p < 0.001). At 1 year, patients in the oral rapamycin group also showed a significantly lower incidence of target vessel revascularization (8.3% vs. 38%, respectively, p < 0.001), target lesion revascularization (7.6% vs. 37.2%, respectively, p < 0.001), and major adverse cardiovascular events (20% vs. 44%, respectively, p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized, controlled, and unblinded study showed that the administration of oral rapamycin during 14 days after stent implantation significantly reduces angiographic and clinical parameters of restenosis.     

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.     

Prospective randomized comparison of sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for the treatment of acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness of the Sirolimus‐ (SES) and Paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) in primary angioplasty for acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background: It has been reported that SES and PES have been more effective than bare‐metal stents in reducing restenosis and cardiac events in a broad range of patients with coronary artery disease. However, it is unknown whether there may be differences between these two drug‐eluting stents in terms of efficacy in the setting of acute STEMI. Methods: Acute STEMI patients (n = 308) undergoing primary angioplasty were randomly assigned to SES (n = 154) or PES (n = 154) deployment. The routine angiographic follow‐up was performed at 6 months and clinical follow‐up data was obtained at 12 months. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Results: The baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Two patients (all from the PES group) experienced stent thrombosis (1 acute and 1 subacute). The SES group revealed lower in‐segment restenosis (5.9% vs. 14.8%, P = 0.03) and in‐segment late loss (0.09 ± 0.45 vs. 0.33 ± 0.68 mm, P = 0.002) than PES group on follow‐up angiography. Twelve‐month TLR rates (2.6% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.17) were similar between two groups. MACE rates were lower in the SES group than in the PES group, but it did not reach statistical significance (5.8% vs. 11.7%, P = 0.07). Conclusion: In the setting of primary angioplasty for STEMI, there were no statistically significant differences between the SES and the PES in terms of 12‐month MACE. However, binary angiographic in‐segment restenosis and in‐segment late loss were significantly lower in the SES group. © 2008 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.     

Efficacy of everolimus eluting stent implantation in patients with calcified coronary culprit lesions: Two‐year angiographic and three‐year clinical results from the SPIRIT II study

Background : Little is known about the impact of treatment with drug‐eluting stents (DES) on calcified coronary lesions. This analysis sought to assess the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) in patients with calcified or noncalcified culprit lesions. Methods : The study population consisted of 212 patients with 247 lesions, who were treated with EES alone. Target lesions were angiographically classified as none/mild, moderate, or severe grades of calcification. The population was divided into two groups: those with at least one target lesion moderately or severely calcified (the calcified group: 68 patients with 75 calcified lesions) and those with all target lesions having mild or no calcification (the noncalcified group: 144 patients). Six‐month and 2‐year angiographic follow‐up and clinical follow‐up up to 3 years were completed. Results : The baseline characteristics were not significantly different between both groups. When compared with the noncalcified group, the calcified group had significantly higher rates of 6‐month in‐stent angiographic binary restenosis (ABR, 4.3% vs. 0%, P = 0.03) and ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization (ID‐TLR, 5.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.01), resulting in numerically higher major cardiac adverse events (MACE, 5.9% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.09). At 2 years, when compared with the noncalcified group, the calcified group presented higher in‐stent ABR (7.4% vs. 0%, P = 0.08) and ID‐TLR (7.8% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.03), resulting in numerically higher MACE (10.9% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.12). At 3 years, ID‐TLR tended to be higher in the calcified group than in the noncalcified group (8.6% vs. 2.4%, P = 0.11), resulting in numerically higher MACE (12.1% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.12). Conclusions: The MACE rates in patients treated with EES for calcified lesions were higher than in those for noncalcified lesions, but remained lower than the results of previously reported stent studies. EES implantation in patients with calcified culprit lesions was safe and associated with favorable reduction of restenosis and repeat revascularization. © 2010 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.     

Drug-eluting stents compared with thin-strut bare stents for the reduction of restenosis: a prospective, randomized trial.

AIM: Drug-eluting stents have considerably reduced restenosis. Their relative merits have been assessed on the basis of comparisons made with control bare stents with thick struts. However, increased strut thickness negatively affects restenosis. No direct comparisons between drug-eluting stents and bare stents with thin struts have been performed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher) as compared with that of bare stents with thin struts (BeStent 2). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 500 patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to receive a Cypher stent or BeStent. The primary endpoint was angiographic restenosis defined as a stenosis diameter > or = 50% at 6-month angiographic follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) during the year following the procedure. Follow-up angiography was performed in 81.8% of the patients. Patients treated with Cypher stents had a lower angiographic restenosis rate [8.3 vs. 25.5%, relative risk, 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.56), P<0.001] and a lower incidence of TVR [7.2 vs. 18.8%, relative risk, 0.38 (0.22-0.66), P<0.001]. For smaller vessels (< 2.8 mm), the angiographic restenosis rates were 7.0% with the Cypher stent and 34.2% with the BeStent (P<0.001). For larger vessels (> or = 2.8 mm), angiographic restenosis rates were 10.0% with the Cypher stent and 13.1% with the BeStent (P=0.52). CONCLUSION: The drug-eluting stent, Cypher, is associated with a significantly lower risk of restenosis compared with the bare thin-strut BeStent. The advantage of the Cypher stent is vastly reduced in large vessels.     

Angiographic and Clinical Outcomes after Implantation of Drug Eluting Stents in Bifurcation Lesions with Crush or Kissing Stent Technique

Background

Long‐term outcome after bifurcation stenting with drug‐eluting stents (DES) for obstructive coronary artery disease is poorly understood. In this study, we report 6–9‐month angiographic follow‐up and long‐term clinical outcomes after implantation of drug‐eluting stents by crush and kissing stent technique for coronary bifurcation lesions.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing bifurcation stenting with DES by crush or kissing stent technique were enrolled in a prospective registry. Angiographic follow‐up was obtained at 6–9 months and clinical follow‐up completed for a median of 38 months.

Results

A total of 86 patients participated in the study. Bifurcation stenting by crush technique was performed in 73 (85%) and by kissing stent in 13 (15%) patients. Stenting of left main bifurcation was applied in 24 (28%) patients. Angiographic follow‐up was completed in 75 (87%) patients and showed restenosis in the main for 8 (11%) and side branch for 20 (27%) patients. Clinical follow‐up was available for a median duration of 38 months. During follow‐up, 2 (2%) patients died, 4 (5%) experienced myocardial infarction (MI), and 11 (13%) underwent target vessel revascularization (TVR) with an overall major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate of 16%. In left main cohort, angiographic restenosis occurred in 9 (37%) patients, and 3 (12%) patients required TVR. There were no deaths or stent thrombosis. A comparison of crush and kissing stent technique showed significantly higher angiographic restenosis with crush (26% vs 13% in kissing stent patients, P = 0.046) and 95% of restenosis in crush group involved ostium of the side branch. There was no difference in clinical outcomes between the crush and kissing stent groups. Final kissing balloon dilatation (FKB) was successful in 65 (89%) patients in the crush group and associated with a significant reduction in MACE (8% in FKB successful vs 37% in FKB unsuccessful, P = 0.04) during follow‐up.

Conclusion

Bifurcation stenting with crush or kissing stent technique is safe and associated with a low rate of TLR and MACE on long‐term follow‐up. Crush stenting is associated with a significantly higher rate of side branch restenosis compared to kissing stent technique. FKB is associated with significant reduction in MACE during follow‐up. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:145–152)

     

Sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for coronary bifurcations intervention

Backgrounds : Relative efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) compared with paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) remains controversial. It is unknown whether there are different effect and safety in coronary bifurcation treatment between SES and PES. Objectives : The meta‐analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of SES and PES in coronary bifurcation intervention. Methods : Five head‐to‐head clinical trials of SES versus PES in coronary bifurcation intervention were included. A total of 2,567 patients were involved in the meta‐analysis. Mean follow‐up period ranged from 6 to 35 months. The primary end points were the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) and main‐branch restenosis. Secondary end points were target vessel revascularization (TVR), cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and stent thrombosis. Results : Compared with PES, SES significantly reduced the risk of TLR (5.3% vs. 10.6%, odds ratio (OR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.38–0.70, P < 0.001), main‐branch restenosis (4.59% vs. 12.59%, OR 0.31; 95% CI = 0.18–0.55, P < 0.001) and TVR (7.05% vs. 12.57%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.42–0.81, P = 0.001) in coronary bifurcation intervention. In addition, SES group also had a significantly lower incidence of MACE (8.20% vs. 14.13%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.40–0.84, P = 0.004) than PES group. However, there were no statistical difference with respect to the incidence of cardiac death (1.64% vs. 1.09%, P = 0.19) and stent thrombosis (0.84% vs. 1.08%, P = 0.64) between SES and PES groups. Conclusions : Compared with PES, SES reduced the incidence of TLR, main‐branch restenosis and MACE in coronary bifurcation intervention, while the risk of stent thrombosis was similar between SES and PES groups. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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

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

Comparison of 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.     

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

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

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.     

Everolimus- and zotarolimus-eluting stents for bare metal stent in-stent restenosis treatment: a prospective study

Background: Treatment of in‐stent restenosis (ISR) is a challenging clinical problem. Recent studies have verified the safety and efficacy of first‐generation DES for the treatment of ISR. The safety and effectiveness of new‐generation drug‐eluting stents (nDES) for ISR has not been previously investigated. The aim of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the clinical outcomes after treatment with nDES implantation in patients with bare metal stent (BMS) ISR. Methods: Consecutive patients with ISR after BMS implantation were included. Primary end‐point was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). The incidence of stent thrombosis was also evaluated. Results: A total of 46 consecutive patients were enrolled for the treatment of ISR, 23 patients from ZES and 23 from EES group. There were two (8.7%) cases of TVR in ZES cohort due to proliferative ISR at 6 and 7 months after DES implantation, and none in EES. One (4.3%) patient underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and the other (4.3%) was treated surgically. Neither acute nor subacute thrombosis was observed during the 13.3±6.3 months follow‐up period. In all other patients, stress test was negative for ischemia at 6 months. Conclusions: In this prospective study, we showed that direct nDES implantation is highly effective for ISR and seems to be a promising management for the treatment of ISR.     

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.     

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.     

Sex‐specific outcomes following revascularization with zotarolimus‐eluting stents: Comparison of angiographic and late‐term clinical results

Objectives: We examined angiographic and late‐term clinical outcomes according to sex in recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials involving zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES). Background. Differences in outcome between men and women undergoing PCI have been inconsistently described with bare metal and first‐generation drug‐eluting stents. Methods. Clinical and angiographic outcomes among ZES‐treated patients were evaluated by sex using propensity score modeling in a patient‐level systematic overview of six trials and were also compared to patients receiving bare metal stents (BMS). Results. Among 2,132 patients, 608 were female (28.5%). Compared to men, women were older and more frequently had diabetes, hypertension, and a smaller reference vessel diameter (P < 0.05 for all). For both sexes, the relative reductions in 8‐month angiographic binary restenosis and late lumen loss were statistically significant and of similar extent with ZES compared to BMS. By 2 years, treatment with ZES resulted in significantly lower target vessel revascularization (TVR) and target vessel failure (TVF; 10.0% vs. 21.5%, P = 0.0003) among women that paralleled risk reductions for men. However, among ZES‐treated patients, 2‐year rates of TVR (8.2% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.005) and TVF (9.9% vs. 12.8%, P = 0.004) were significantly lower among women, although rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar. Conclusions. Despite greater baseline clinical and angiographic risk than men, women undergoing PCI with ZES compared to BMS experienced significant reductions in angiographic restenosis and repeat revascularization yet similar safety. Among all patients treated with ZES, late‐term safety and efficacy outcomes are similar, if not lower, among women compared to men. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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

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

Sirolimus-versus paclitaxel-eluting stents: a comparison of two consecutive series in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND: We compared two consecutive series of patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-five patients with 590 coronary lesions were treated with 274 SES and 379 PES. Patients with symptoms or positive dobutamine stress echocardiography were subjected to repeat coronary angiography. RESULTS: During a follow-up of 13.3 +/- 5.7 months, the incidence rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 4.1%, including, 1 death, 4 Q-wave myocardial infarctions, 2 late angiographic stent thromboses, 3 subacute stent thromboses, and 11 target vessel revascularizations (TVR), and was not significantly different between SES (n = 5) and PES (n = 7).Stent overlapping was found to be an independent predictor of both MACE (odds ratio = 0.078, P = 0.02) and TVR (odds ratio = 0.077, P = 0.02). Follow-up symptoms- or ischemia-driven angiography was performed in 45 patients. Only vessel size was a predictor of stent restenosis (P = 0.02), independent of stent type. Late loss was independently predicted by postdilatation of stent (beta =-0.24, P = 0.03), but not by type of stent (P = 0.14) or other parameters. Edge restenosis was seen in 8 patients subjected to lesion predilatation. The restenosis pattern after SES implantation was focal, but diffuse (n = 1) or proliferative (n = 1) restenosis, and in-stent aneurysm formation (n = 1) was also seen with PES. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a trend for a higher incidence of MACE with PES, no significant differences between the two stent types were detected. Diffuse restenosis was seen only with PES, and edge restenosis only in lesions with balloon predilatation before stent implantation. Stent overlapping was an independent predictor of both TVR and MACE.     

Real world experience with an indigenously manufactured stent Cobal C – A retrospective study

Background

Second generation bare metal stents made of cobalt chromium alloy are superior to first generation stain less steel stents. The thin struts are shown to reduce clinical and angiographic adverse outcomes.

Objective

To study the long term clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients who underwent coronary angioplasty with an indigenously made cobalt chromium bare metal stents with thin strut Cobal+C™ (Relisys).

Methods

A total of 268 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angioplasty with Cobal+C stents were studied retrospectively. Clinical follow up was done after a minimum period of nine months through telephonic interview and angiographic follow up was done in 80 patients chosen randomly. The end points analyzed included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at nine months and the rate of binary restenosis at follow up angiogram done between 9 and 15 months post angioplasty.

Results

Thirty four percent were diabetic and 33% had acute myocardial infarction. Females constituted 17%. Mean stent diameter was 2.88 ± 0.28 and mean stent length 18.8 ± 4.2. MACE at nine months was 4.5% with TLR 0.3%. The rate of binary restenosis was 21%. Patients with longer stent lengths and non-compliance with medications had significantly higher rates of binary restenosis.

Conclusions

The use of Relisys Cobal+C stents was associated with good long term clinical and angiographic outcomes as evidenced by low incidence of MACE and binary restenosis rates for a bare metal stent.