Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for treatment of bare‐metal in‐stent restenosis

Objectives : We compared the long‐term outcomes of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare‐metal stents (BMS) for treatment of bare‐metal in‐stent restenosis (ISR). Background : There are no randomized trials or observational studies directly comparing the safety and efficacy of DES versus BMS for treatment of bare‐metal ISR. Methods : We examined data on all patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR at Cleveland Clinic between 05/1999 and 06/2007. We compared the efficacy and safety of DES to BMS for treating bare‐metal ISR. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were individual components of the primary endpoint. Results : Of the 931 patients identified over 8 years, 706 had bare‐metal ISR and met our study criteria. Of the 706 patients with bare‐metal ISR, 362 were treated with DES and 344 with BMS. There were 230 cumulative events for a median follow‐up of 3.2 years. After adjusting for 27 variables, DES were associated with lower primary endpoint compared to BMS for treatment of bare‐metal ISR (21% vs. 45%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–0.95; P = 0.03). The individual secondary endpoint of death (8% vs. 24%, P = 0.005) favored DES, but MI (3% vs. 8%, P = 0.31), and TLR (13% vs. 20%, P = 0.23) failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions : In our multivariate analysis of patients with bare‐metal ISR, DES use was associated with significantly lower death, MI, or TLR when compared to BMS. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Outcomes of diabetics receiving bare‐metal stents versus drug‐eluting stents

Objectives : We sought to determine if differences existed in in‐hospital outcomes, long‐term rates of target vessel revascularization (TVR), and/or long‐term mortality trends between patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either a drug‐eluting stent(s) (DES) or a bare metal stent(s) (BMS). Background : Short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing PCI with DES versus BMS remain inconsistent between randomized‐controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods : Data were collected prospectively on diabetics undergoing PCI with either DES or BMS from January 2000 to June 2008. Demographic information, medical histories, in‐hospital outcomes, and long‐term TVR and mortality trends were obtained for all patients. Results : A total of 1,319 patients were included in the study. Diabetics receiving DES had a significant reduction in index admission MACE compared to diabetics receiving BMS. Using multivariable adjustment, after a mean follow‐up of 2.5 years (maximum 5 years), diabetics who received DES had a 38% decreased risk of TVR compared to diabetics with BMS [HR 0.62 (95% CI: 0.43–0.90)]; diabetics with DES had an insignificant adjusted improvement in long‐term survival compared to diabetics with BMS [HR 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52–1.00)]. These long‐term survival and TVR rates were confirmed using propensity scoring. Conclusions : The use of DES when compared with BMS among diabetics undergoing PCI is associated with significant improvement in long‐term TVR, with an insignificant similar trend in all‐cause mortality. The long‐term results of this observational study are consistent with prior RCTs after adjusting for confounding variables. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

A comparative analysis of major clinical outcomes using drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents in a large consecutive patient cohort

Objectives : To ascertain the long‐term safety, efficacy, and pattern of use of drug‐eluting stents (DES) in routine clinical practice. Methods : We analyzed a registry of 6,583 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), of whom 2,633 were treated using DES (DES group) and 3,950 were treated using bare‐metal stents (BMS group). Propensity score was used for stratified analysis of outcomes and for matching. Outcomes were total mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates, and risk‐adjusted event‐free survival. Results : Follow‐up time was 6 months to 5.18 years (mean: 3 years). Patients in the DES group were more likely to be diabetic and had use of longer or more stents, treatment of more lesions and of more proximal main vessels. After propensity score matching, the cumulative mortality was 12.85% in the DES group versus 14.14% in the BMS group (P = 0.001). Use of DES reduced the occurrence of MI (5.17% vs.5.83%, P = 0.046), of clinically driven TVR (9.76% vs. 12.28%, P < 0.001) and of the composite endpoint of death/MI/TVR (23.38% vs. 26.07%; P < 0.001). Conclusions : Our risk‐adjusted event‐free survival analysis indicates a prognostic benefit for DES utilization that sustains up to 5 years following PCI. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Aneurysm formation after drug‐eluting balloon treatment of drug‐eluting in‐stent restenosis: First case report

A 55‐year‐old male underwent paclitaxel‐eluting stent implantation in a bifurcation lesion of his left anterior descending artery (LAD) during an episode of unstable angina in 2008. A late in‐stent restenosis developed 15 months after implantation of the drug‐eluting stent (DES) and was treated with paclitaxel eluting balloon. Two months later, during angiography for functional assessment of the significance of lesions in the circumflex artery, an aneurysm at the place of drug‐eluting balloon (DEB) inflation was observed. The patient was left on double antiplatelet therapy and scheduled for clinical observation after 3 months and control coronary angiography after 6 months for aneurysm progression follow‐up. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Kissing drug eluting balloons for in‐stent restenosis complicating bifurcations treated with drug‐eluting stents

The management of in‐stent restenosis (ISR) complicating bifurcation lesions is technically challenging and implant of further stents may not be feasible. The use of drug‐eluting balloons provides an attractive option for treatment of such lesions allowing a technically simple procedure without the need for further complex stenting. The SeQuent Please paclitaxel‐eluting balloon (B. Braun, Berlin, Germany) has been shown to be superior to a paclitaxel eluting stent or balloon angioplasty for ISR complicating a bare‐metal stent. However, there is no data on the efficacy of the SeQuent Please in ISR complicating drug‐eluting stents or bifurcation lesions. We report two cases where the SeQuent Please was used in this setting with angiographic success and freedom from target vessel failure and angina at 24 months. In both cases the Sheathless Eau Cath guide (Asahi Intecc, Japan) was employed to perform a kissing‐balloon dilatation with the SeQuent Please, so allowing treatment via radial access. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Decreased risk of stent fracture‐related restenosis between paclitaxel‐eluting stents and sirolimus eluting stents: Results of long‐term follow‐up

Objective: To compare the outcomes between paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) for the treatment of drug‐eluting stent (DES) fracture. Background: DES fracture is considered as an important predictor of in‐stent restenosis (ISR). However, little data are available evaluating the optimal treatment for this complication of coronary stenting. Methods: From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008, patients with DES ISR treated with a second DES were identified and evaluated for stent fracture. Stent fracture was defined by the presence of strut separation in multiple angiographic projections, assessed by two independent reviewers. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 6 and 12 months were the primary end points. Results: Of 131 lesions with DES ISR treated with a second DES, we found 24 patients (24 lesions, 18.2%) with angiographically confirmed stent fracture. Of these, 20 patients (20 lesions) treated with either PES (n = 11/55%) or SES (n = 9/45%) were included in the study. TLR at 6 months occurred in 9% of patients treated with PES and 22% of those treated with SES (P = 0.41). After 12 months, TLR was 9% and 55.5%, respectively (P = 0.024). Conclusions: This study demonstrates a high incidence of stent fracture in patients presenting with DES ISR in need of further treatment with another DES. The suggested association between treatment of stent fracture‐associated DES ISR with PES as compared with SES, and better long‐term outcomes, is in need of confirmation by larger prospective registries and randomized trials. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Treatment of drug‐eluting stent restenosis: An emerging challenge

Drug eluting stent (DES) restenosis has emerged as a significant clinical entity owing to the increasing use of DES in complex lesions and patients. However, to date, there is a paucity of studies that have addressed the management of DES restenosis and the resulting outcome, leaving the interventional cardiologist with a therapeutic dilemma. The purpose of this paper is therefore to provide a consise review of available data's dealing with the treatment of DES restenosis, including the outcome of patients treated for DES restenosis, the prognostic importance of the angiographic pattern and the available therapeutic modalities. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Stent fracture associated with drug‐eluting stents: Clinical characteristics and implications

Objective : To evaluate the clinical characteristics and implications of stent fracture in drug‐eluting stents. Background : Approximately 2.5 million drug‐eluting stents are implanted every year worldwide. In 10 randomized controlled trials involving 2,602 patients, no incidence of stent fracture was recognized or reported. Methods : From April 2003 to December 2005, 2,728 patients underwent drug‐eluting stenting. The angiograms of all 530 patients who underwent repeat angiography were analyzed to identify the presence of stent fracture. We then documented the incidence of adverse events associated with drug‐eluting stent fracture and systematically analyzed the clinical, procedural, and structural factors, which might predispose to stent fracture. Results : Stent fracture was identified in 10 patients. None of these fractures were detectable at the time of stent placement. The median time interval from stent implantation to detection of fracture at repeat angiography was 226 days (range, 7–620 days). Adverse clinical outcomes associated with stent fracture occurred in 7 patients (6 patients had binary restenosis and 1 patient had stent thrombosis), all necessitating repeat intervention. Analysis of potential predisposing clinical, procedural, and structural factors revealed that 4 patients had excessive tortuosity in the proximal segment, and overlapping stents were used in 5 cases. All fractures occurred in sirolimus‐eluting stents. Conclusions : Stent fracture may represent a new potential mechanism of restenosis and stent thrombosis in drug‐eluting stents. Predisposing clinical and procedural factors may be vessel tortuosity and use of overlapping stents. The most important predisposing factor, however, may be stent structure, since all fractures occurred in sirolimus‐eluting stents. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.