Late target lesion revascularization after implantation of sirolimus‐eluting stent

Objectives : We evaluated the incidence, clinical presentation, and angiographic in‐stent restenosis (ISR) pattern of late target lesion revascularization (TLR) after sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) implantation. Background : Late TLR is an unusual finding beyond 6–9 months after bare‐metal stent implantation. However, late TLR after SES implantation has not been sufficiently evaluated. Methods : The study population consisted of 804 patients with 1,020 native lesions that were patent at 6‐month follow‐up angiogram after SES implantation. Results : Late TLR was performed in 18 patients with 18 lesions (1.8%) at 24.1 ± 2.6 months (range; 18–30 months) after SES implantation. Clinical presentation of late TLR patients was silent ischemia in eight patients and recurrent angina in 10 patients, but none had an acute coronary syndrome. Angiographic ISR pattern of late TLR lesions were focal ISR in 12 lesions (67%) and diffuse ISR in six lesions (33%). Serial quantitative coronary angiographic analysis of these lesions showed a minimal lumen diameter of 2.6 ± 0.5 mm immediately after SES implantation, 2.4 ± 0.4 mm at 6‐month follow‐up and 0.7 ± 0.6 mm at 24‐month follow‐up (ANOVA P < 0.001). By stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor of late TLR was stent length (P < 0.001, OR = 1.040, 95% CI = 1.019–1.061). Conclusions : Late TLR was performed in 1.8% of 1,020 native lesions that were patent at 6‐month follow‐up angiogram. Clinical presentations of late TLR was either silent ischemia or recurrent angina, but not acute coronary syndrome. Two‐thirds of late TLR lesions had a focal angiographic ISR pattern. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Angiographic outcomes with biodegradable polymer and permanent polymer drug‐eluting stents

Background : In the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus‐Eluting Stents (ISAR‐TEST‐4) trial, we demonstrated the noninferiority of biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus‐eluting stent to permanent polymer (PP) sirolimus/everolimus‐eluting stent (Cypher/Xience‐V) on the basis of clinical outcomes. In this study, we compare the antirestenotic efficacy of these stents in ISAR‐TEST‐4 patients with paired angiographic studies. Methods : Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels (excluding left main lesions) were randomly assigned to receive a BP stent or a PP stent. Endpoints of interest of this study were in‐stent late lumen loss, in‐segment binary restenosis, and restenosis morphology at 6–8‐month follow‐up angiogram. Results : Of the 2,603 patients (3,372 lesions) enrolled in ISAR TEST‐4 trial, 2,016 patients (2,637 lesions) underwent repeat angiographic examination 6–8 months after randomization: 1,006 patients (1,323 lesions) treated with BP stents and 1,010 patients (1,314 lesions) treated with PP stents. No difference was observed between BP and PP stents in in‐stent late lumen loss (0.24 ± 0.6 vs. 0.26 ± 0.5 mm, respectively, P = 0.49) or in in‐segment binary restenosis (11.6% [153 lesions] vs. 11.8% [155 lesions], P = 0.85). Focal pattern of restenosis was observed in the majority of patients receiving either BP or PP stents. The diffuse pattern of restenosis was observed in 26.8% of patients treated with BP stent and 26.5% of patients treated with PP stent (P = 0.79). Conclusion : Angiographic characteristics of restenosis after BP‐based limus‐eluting stents are similar to those of PP‐based limus‐eluting stents. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Sustained clinical safety and efficacy of a biodegradable‐polymer coated sirolimus‐eluting stent in “real‐world” practice: Three‐year outcomes of the CREATE (multi‐center registry of EXCEL biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents) study

Background: The CREATE is a post‐marketing surveillance multicenter registry that demonstrated satisfactory angiographic and clinical (at 18 months) outcomes of a biodegradable polymer based sirolimus‐eluting stent (EXCEL, JW Medical System, Weihai, China) for the treatment of patients in routine clinical practice. Objectives: To evaluate the three‐year clinical safety and efficacy outcomes in patients enrolled in the CREATE study. Methods: A total of 2077 all comers have been enrolled in the CREATE study at 59 centers from four countries. Recommended antiplatelet regimen was clopidogrel and aspirin for six months followed by chronic aspirin therapy. The prespecified primary outcome was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12, 18, and 36 months. Results: Clinical follow‐up was completed in 2025 (97.5%) patients at three years. The average duration of clopidogrel treatment was 199.8 ± 52.7 days and 80.5% of discharged patients discontinued clopidogrel at six months. The cumulative rate of MACE was 4.5% and the rate of stent thrombosis was 1.53% at three years. At six months to three years, prolonged clopidogrel therapy (>6 months) was not beneficial in reducing cumulative hazards of MACE (3.4% vs. 3.1%, log rank P = 0.725) or stent thrombosis (1.5% vs. 0.6%, log rank P = 0.053). Conclusions: This study demonstrates sustained three‐year clinical safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer‐based sirolimus‐eluting stents when used with six months of dual antiplatelet therapy in a “real‐world” setting. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Comparison of a polymer‐free rapamycin‐eluting stent (YUKON) with a polymer‐based paclitaxel‐eluting stent (TAXUS) in real‐world coronary artery lesions

Background : In selected patient cohorts the polymer‐free rapamycin‐eluting YUKON stent (A) has demonstrated noninferiority compared with the polymer‐based paclitaxel‐eluting TAXUS stent (B). To test for equivalency in unselected real‐world patients with coronary lesions of various complexities, we retrospectively compared both stent designs. Methods : A total of 410 patients with symptomatic CAD were successfully treated with A (n = 205) or with B (n = 205). Baseline clinical characteristics, coronary lesion location, lesion length, and the number of stents implanted per lesion were equally distributed between the treatment groups. All patients underwent QCA‐analysis at baseline. Clinical follow‐up with assessment of MACE and noncardiac deaths was obtained at 30 days and 6 months. Results : Nominal stent diameter was 2.96 ± 0.38 mm in Group A vs. 3.05 ± 0.42 mm in Group B (P = 0.2); nominal length of stented segmentwas 22.97 ±13.0 mm vs. 23.63 ± 10.0 (P = 0.56). Analysis of MACE after 6 months resulted in one angiographically documented stent thrombosis causing MI in B (0.2%) vs. none in A. No other MI or cardiac deaths occurred in either group, while two noncardiac deaths in A (1.0%) were reported. Fifteen target lesion revascularizations (7.3%) were performed in A vs. 7 (3.4%) in B. Differences in study endpoints at 6 months did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). Conclusions : Up to 6 months after PCI of real‐world coronary lesions, there were no statistically significant differences in MACE between patients treated with the polymer‐free rapamycin‐eluting YUKON stent and the polymer‐based paclitaxel‐eluting TAXUS stent. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

One‐Year Results of the CRISTAL Trial,a Randomized Comparison of Cypher Sirolimus‐Eluting Coronary Stents versus Balloon Angioplasty for Restenosis of Drug‐Eluting Stents

Objectives: We compared the efficacy of the Cypher Select? (Cordis Corporation, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) versus balloon angioplasty (BA) in in‐stent restenosis (ISR) of Taxus? or Taxus Liberté? paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES; Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) or Cypher/Cypher Select SES. Background: Optimal treatment strategies have not been identified for drug‐eluting stent (DES) ISR. Methods: Patients with a native coronary artery SES or PES ISR were randomized to SES or BA. In addition, a control group included BMS ISR treated with SES. Angiographic control was performed at 12 months. Results: 281 patients were enrolled. Significant differences favoring SES over BA were noted in immediate and net gain (1.39 ± 0.51 vs. 0.97 ± 0.54 mm, P < 0.0001 and 1.07 ± 0.69 vs. 0.49 ± 0.67 mm, P < 0.0001), 12‐month mean luminal diameter (MLD; 2.14 ± 0.62 vs. 1.71 ± 0.55 mm, P < 0.0001) and percent diameter stenosis (%DS; 21 ± 19.24 vs. 29.82 ± 18.47, P = 0.001). There was no significant difference at 12 months between SES and BA in the primary end‐point late lumen loss (LLL; 0.37 ± 0.57 vs.0.41 ± 0.63, P = 0.73) and in in‐stent binary restenosis (11.1% vs. 14%, P = 0.59). Target‐lesion revascularization (TLR) was numerically lower in patients treated with SES (5.9% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.097). There was no difference according to the initial DES. In contrast, significantly higher immediate and net gains and MLD were noted in the BMS control group treated by SES. Conclusions: In this angiographic randomized trial comparing SES and BA in SES or PES restenosis, 12 month MLD, immediate and net gain, and %DS favored SES whereas no difference was noted in LLL. Condensed Abstract Optimal treatment strategies have not been identified for sirolimus‐ (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) in‐stent restenosis (ISR). We randomized patients with a native coronary artery SES or PES ISR to SES or BA. In addition, a control group included BMS ISR treated with SES. There was no difference in the primary end‐point, late lumen loss (LLL) at 12 months between the SES and BA groups. However, follow‐up MLD and immediate and net gain favored SES. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:586–595)     

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.     

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.     

One-year outcomes with angiographic follow-up of paclitaxel-eluting balloon for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: insights from Spanish multicenter registry

Introduction: Even in the drug‐eluting stent (DES) era treatment of in‐stent restenosis (ISR) is still a relatively common problem for which a satisfactory solution is yet to be found. We wished to assess the efficacy of a new paclitaxel‐coated drug‐eluting balloon (DEB) in the treatment of these lesions. Methods: In this prospective multicenter registry 126 patients with ISR, treated with a new paclitaxel‐eluting balloon (3.0 μg/m² balloon surface area), were included. All lesions were predilated using conventional balloon angioplasty. The DEB was inflated for a minimum of 60 seconds. Dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended for at least 1 month. The only exclusion criteria were acute STEMI and cardiogenic shock. Results: Thirty‐three percent of patients were diabetic and 51% presented acutely. Interestingly, 48% had ISR of DES, 54% had ISR in a small vessel, and 29% involved bifurcation lesions. The pattern of ISR was focal in 59% and the most treated artery was the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Angiographic success was 96%. In 2 centers, repeat angiography was performed in 79% and restenosis observed in 6 patients (17.6%). MACE rate at a median of 12 (6–13) months was 16.7% (4.0% cardiac death, 4.0% MI, and 12.0% TLR). There was only 1 probable thombotic event (ARC). As compared with BMS‐ISR, patients with DES‐ISR were more often diabetic (40 vs. 28%) and had more re‐restenosis (TLR 14.8 vs. 9.2%). Conclusion: In a real‐world population, treatment of ISR (including 48% DES‐ISR) with this DEB provides good mid‐term results with 12% TLR at 1 year, especially in ISR pattern IC (9% MACE). (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:518–528)     

Same or Different Drug‐Eluting Stent Re‐Implantation for Drug‐Eluting Stent Restenosis: An Assessment Including Second‐Generation Drug‐Eluting Stents

Objectives

We examined the long‐term outcomes of implanting a different type of drug‐eluting stent (DES), including second‐generation DES, for treatment of DES‐in stent restenosis (ISR).

Background

Treatment for DES‐ISR has not been standardized.

Methods

The subjects were 80 patients with 89 lesions underwent DES implantation for DES‐ISR. The patients were divided into the group of patients receiving the same DES for DES‐ISR (Homo‐stent: 24 patients, 25 lesions) and a different DES for DES‐ISR (Hetero‐stent: 56 patients, 64 lesions). The primary endpoint was survival free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The secondary endpoint was late loss at 8–12 months follow‐up. In the subgroup of patients who were treated with second‐generation DES for DES‐ISR, we also assessed the survival free of MACE.

Results

During a mean follow‐up of 45.1 ± 21.2 months, 26 patients experienced MACE. There was no significant difference in the survival free of MACE (Log rank P = 0.17). In the sub‐analysis of second generation DES, MACE was significantly higher in the Homo‐stent group compared to the Hetero‐stent group (Log rank P = 0.04). Late loss was significantly higher in the Homo‐stent group than in the Hetero‐stent group (0.86 ± 1.03 vs. 0.38 ± 0.74 mm, P = 0.03). This trend was prominent in the first‐generation DES group.

Conclusions

Although there was no significant difference in MACE between the Hetero‐stent and the Homo‐stent groups including both first and second‐generation DES, the sub‐analysis demonstrated different DES implantation for DES‐ISR significantly improved the MACE rate among patients treated with second‐generation DES. (J Interven Cardiol 2016;29:311–318)

     

药物洗脱支架置入治疗不同时期冠状动脉支架内再狭窄对比研究

目的 比较药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗早期(≤1年)、晚期(＞1年)支架内再狭窄病变(ISR)患者的长期临床疗效。方法 收集2008年10月至2011年12月在北京安贞医院因ISR接受DES置入治疗并完成临床随访的患者资料,根据DES术后发生ISR的时间是否大于1年分为早期ISR组与晚期组。比较两组组患者术后1年的主要不良心血管事件［MACE,包括全因死亡、心肌梗死(MI)和靶病变再次血运重建(TLR)］。结果 早期ISR组入选患者80例,晚期ISR组入选患者124例。早期ISR组不稳定型心绞痛发生率明显低于晚期ISR组,差异有统计学意义(27.5%对63.7%,P<0.01);其余基线资料差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组在病变部位、病变类型、病变长度方面比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。早期ISR组MACE发生率明显高于晚期ISR组(30%对15.3%,P<0.01),其中早期ISR组TLR明显高于晚期ISR组,差异有统计学意义(26.3%对12.1%,P<0.01)。结论 DES治疗ISR患者安全有效,但治疗早期ISR组病变TLR发生率高于晚期ISR组。     

Outcome of patients treated by a novel thin‐strut cobalt‐chromium stent in the drug‐eluting stent era: Results of the SKICE (Skylor in real world practice) registry

Objectives : To investigate the outcome of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with implantation of a new thin‐strut cobalt‐chromium bare‐metal‐stent (BMS) in the drug‐eluting‐stent (DES) era. Background : Despite the contemporary penetration of DES in the clinical practice, a relevant percentage of patients are still treated by BMS. Data on clinical outcome of novel BMSs are lacking. Methods : This is a single‐centre‐registry enrolling patients treated by Skylor? stent implantation. During the study, the criteria for BMS selection adopted at our institution (“internal” criteria) were as follows: (1) limited compliance to prolonged double antiplatelet therapy, (2) ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or saphenous vein grafts (SVG) interventions, and (3) in the absence of these conditions, noncomplex (no bifurcations, no chronic total occlusions) lesions considered at low restenosis risk on the basis of arbitrary angiographic criteria (short lesions, large vessels). Primary and secondary end‐points were respectively major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and target vessel failure (TVF) up to 9‐month. Results: A total of 150 patients were treated with Skylor? stent on 169 lesions. At 9‐month follow‐up, MACE occurred in 12 patients (8.0%) and TVF in 21 lesions (12.4%). By multivariable analysis, the predictors of MACE were Euroscore≥9 and ejection fraction < 30% while the predictors of TVF were the absence of the angiographic criteria of low restenosis risk and ejection fraction < 30%. Conclusions: In the DES era, the use of a last‐generation BMS in patients with limited compliance to double antiplatelet therapy, STEMI or SVG interventions, and noncomplex angiographic lesions may be associated with acceptable clinical outcome. © 2009 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.     

Three-year follow-up after intracoronary beta-radiation therapy for in-stent restenosis.

BACKGROUND: Most studies that proved intracoronary radiation therapy (IRT) to be highly effective to reduce recurrent restenosis after treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) have looked at time periods up to 12 months. Whether the beneficial effect from radiation is sustained during long-term follow-up remains a concern. This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of IRT using a beta-emitter during a 3-year follow-up period. METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight consecutive symptomatic patients (mean age, 63 +/- 11 years) with 134 in-stent restenotic lesions were treated for ISR with IRT (noncentred beta-emitter, Novoste; radiation dosis 21.1 +/- 3.1 Gy). Six-month angiographic follow-up was obtained in 104 patients (81%) with 105 lesions (78%). All patients underwent 36-month clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Six-month angiographic restenosis rate was 22% in stent (29% in lesion) with an in-stent late loss of 0.49 +/- 0.62 mm. Target lesion resvascularization (TLR) at 6-month follow-up was performed in 23 cases (18%). MACE (death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation) was observed in 24 patients (19%). At 36-month follow-up, TLR increased to 36 cases (28%) and MACE was observed in 47 patients (37%). In a multivariate analysis, minimal lumen diameter before treatment of ISR using IRT was the only predictor of recurrent TLR at 36 months (OR = 0.131; 95% CI, 0.068-0.254; p = 0.002). In a subgroup of patients (N = 15) without restenosis at 6-month angiography but with clinically driven recurrent late angiography (mean, 18 +/- 7 months); in-lesion late loss increased from 0.47 +/- 0.54 mm at 6 months to 1.27 +/- 0.76 mm at repeated angiography (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: There is a considerable number of delayed recurrent restenosis post IRT for ISR. This is due to ongoing late loss more than 6-month post IRT. The minimal lumen diameter before IRT predicts the need for recurrent TLR at 36 months.     

Unprotected left main coronary artery stenting with zotarolimus (Endeavor) drug‐eluting stents

Objectives: To report the safety and efficacy of zotarolimus eluting stents for treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Background: Percutaneous stent insertion is an increasingly popular alternative to bypass surgery for the management of left main (LM) coronary artery disease. While data support the use of sirolimus‐ and paclitaxel‐coated stents in the LM coronary artery, there are no published series reporting results with Endeavor (zotarolimus) stents, particularly in the context of unprotected left main (ULM) lesions. Methods: We retrospectively identified 40 consecutive patients who had ULM disease treated with Endeavor stents (ZES) and who had follow‐up angiography. The primary endpoint was the prevalence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac/unexplained death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and in‐stent restenosis (ISR)/target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results: Angiographic and procedural success was achieved in all cases. Follow‐up angiography occurred on average 5.6 ± 0.9 months after the index procedure. There were three incidences of ISR requiring TLR and another patient who had a NSTEMI in the follow‐up period. At late follow‐up (12.4 ± 1.8 months) three patients underwent CABG (one for RCA stenosis) and four patients died without knowledge of the status of the ULM stent (two cardiovascular and two deaths related to cancer progression). Conclusions: In conclusion, our experience with Endeavor stents for the treatment of ULM disease demonstrates excellent angiographic and clinical outcomes, with a 7.5% ISR/TLR rate and a 15% MACE rate, respectively, at an average clinical follow‐up of 12.4 months. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

The Paclitaxel‐Eluting Coroflex™ Stent Study II (PECOPS II) Acute and 6‐Month Clinical and Angiographic Follow‐Up, 1‐Year Clinical Follow‐Up

Background and Objectives: Paclitaxel‐coated stents have proven their efficacy for reducing restenosis in de novo coronary artery lesions and in‐stent restenoses with superiority compared to bare metal stents. This study was performed to evaluate the procedural and 1 year results of the Paclitaxel‐eluting Coroflex? Please stent in coronary artery lesions. Methods: One‐hundred and twenty‐nine patients (66.2 ± 8.2 years, 31.0% diabetics, 20.2% unstable angina, 41.8% multivessel disease) were enrolled per protocol for elective single stent deployment into native de novo or post‐PTCA restenotic coronary lesions.The mean reference diameter was 2.84 ± 0.43 mm, the lesion length 12.51 ± 4.6 mm, and the minimal lumen diameter 0.75 ± 0.29 mm. Follow‐up was performed clinically in 129/129 (100%) after 6 and 12 months and angiographically in 120/129 (93%) patients after 6 months. Results: The success rates of the procedure and deployment were 100% and 95.3%, respectively. The in‐stent late loss and the late‐loss index were 0.27 ± 0.59 mm and 0.17 ± 0.40 resulting in binary in‐stent restenoses in 16/120 (13.3%) subjects and in‐segment restenoses in 20/120 (16.7%) subjects. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 23/129 (17.8%) during the first 6 months of follow‐up with 3/129 (2.3%) myocardial infarctions, 1/129 (0.8%) secondary to stent thrombosis. From 6 to 12 months, 2/129 (1.6%) nonlesion related PCI were performed. Conclusion: The data of the Paclitaxel‐eluting Coroflex? Please stent evaluated in PECOPS II are within the range of the other currently available Paclitaxel‐eluting stent. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:160‐166)     

Clinical and angiographic safety and efficacy trial with a new coronary stent: the RESTOR study of the R Stent

The RESTOR trial (R Stent Efficacy and Safety Trial by ORBUS) is an efficacy and safety evaluation of the R Stent for treatment of patients with a single de novo coronary lesion < 25 mm in length in a coronary artery of 2.75-4.0 mm diameter. This new stent utilizes a patented dual helix design for radial strength and flexibility. The aim of the study was to assess major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and angiographic outcome at 6 months after implantation. From May to December 2000 a total of 121 patients with symptomatic stable or unstable angina pectoris or documented silent ischemia and a significant single, de novo coronary lesion (average reference vessel diameter 2.84 +/- 0.54 mm, average lesion length 10.53 +/- 3.70 mm) were included in two Dutch centers. All patients were treated with clopidogrel 75 mg/day for 1 month and with aspirin greater than or equal to 100 mg/day. The angiographic success rate (< 30% diameter stenosis post-procedure) was 98.3%. Procedural success (angiographic success without in-hospital MACE) was 95.9%. The 6-month MACE rate was 12.4%. 101 of the 121 patients had an angiographic follow-up at 6 months. Minimal lumen diameter pre-/post-procedure and at follow-up was 0.98 +/- 0.37, 2.64 +/- 0.38 and 1.85 +/- 0.68 mm, respectively. The resulting binary restenosis rate in this population was 20.8%. The coronary R Stent is safe and effective as a primary device for the treatment of native coronary lesions in patients with stable or unstable angina pectoris, and well suitable as a platform for a drug eluting stent.     

Cypher~(TM)支架治疗冠心病的疗效观察

目的评价雷帕霉素洗脱冠状动脉支架(CypherTM)应用于冠心病的临床疗效及再狭窄情况。方法选择接受CypherTM支架治疗的348例冠心病患者,观察术后即刻效果、术后6个月心脏性死亡、心肌梗死、再次血管重建及冠状动脉造影复查情况。病例中包括ST段抬高的急性心肌梗死86例,非ST段抬高的急性心肌梗死21例,不稳定型心绞痛149例,稳定型心绞痛92例。结果支架植入成功率99.3%,住院期间无死亡,术后出现急性和亚急性血栓各1例,1例晚期血栓致心肌梗死,1例心衰死亡,另有5例随访中进行了血管重建术,术后6个月主要心脏不良事件发生率2.9%。术后6个月56例冠状动脉造影复查的再狭窄率为7.1%(支架内为1.8%),支架内平均晚期管腔丢失为0.16mm(病变段内为0.20mm),靶病变重建率为5.4%。结论应用CypherTM支架治疗冠心病是安全和有效的,主要心脏不良事件发生率低,支架内再狭窄率和靶病变重建率明显低于普通金属支架。     

One‐year results of the INSPIRE trial with the novel MGuard stent: Serial analysis with QCA and IVUS

Background : The newly developed balloon‐expandable Mguard stent system, a combination of an ultra‐thin polymer mesh sleeve attached to the external surface of a BMS, was conceived to provide embolic protection during PCI of SVG and thrombus‐containig lesions. Although the acute results (<30 days) have pointed to the efficacy of this novel device, few is known about its long‐term performance. Methods : The present article address the 1‐year clinical results of a cohort of 30 patients enrolled in the INSPIRE trial. Inclusion critiria was de novo lesions in SVG or native vessels with angiographic evidence of instability with potential to provoke flow disturbances and/or distal embolization. The primary endpoint (incidence of MACE‐composite of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, and TLR) up to 30 days of the procedure has already been published. Secondary endpoints here presented included in‐stent late lumen loss (QCA), % of stent obstruction (IVUS) at 6 months and combined MACE at 1 year. QCA and IVUS were performed by independent corelabs. Results : Mean population age was 63 years with 38% of diabetics. Overall, 55% presented with ACS and 57% of lesions were located in SVG. Most lesions had complex morphology including the presence of thrombus (26%) and ulceration (20%). Distal/proximal protection devices were not used. Preprocedural QCA data showed lesion length and reference vessel diameter of 12.0 ± 4.5 mm and 3.0 ± 0.5 mm. The MGuard stent was successfully delivered in all cases and final TIMI‐3 was achieved in 100% with no MACE up to 30 days. At 6 months, in‐stent late loss and % of stent obstruction were 1.0 ± 0.4 mm and 28.5 ± 15.6%. Up to 1 year there was no case of cardiac death, two MI (one Q‐wave and one non‐Q‐wave) and six cases of ischemia‐driven TLR. Of note, there was no case of definite/probable stent thorombosis. Conclusions : In this series of patients treated with MGuard stent, the novel device showed no midterm efficacy and safety concerns. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

载雷帕霉素可降解聚合物涂层支架治疗冠心病的临床观察

目的以Cypher支架为标准,评价载雷帕霉素可降解聚合物涂层支架(EXCEL支架)治疗冠心病(CAD)的安全性和临床效果。方法采用前瞻性、非随机对比研究方法,根据入选和剔除标准入选60例CAD患者,根据所置入支架分为EXCEL组(n=32)和Cypher组(n=28);相同方法进行冠状动脉造影(CAG)和支架置入;以6个月主要不良心脏事件(MACE)、再狭窄率、直径狭窄程度和晚期管腔丢失(LLL)为研究终点评价EXCEL支架治疗CAD的安全性和临床效果。结果平均随访(6.04±2.12)个月,两组MACE发生率均为0;EXCEL组27例(84.38%)和Cypher组10例(35.71%)于术后平均(6.04±2.12)个月接受了定量冠状动脉造影随访。各组再狭窄率均为0;直径再狭窄率分别为(5.98±5.52)%和(5.21±6.3)%,LLL分别为-(0.02±0.09)mm和-(0.01±0.07)mm,上述各项指标差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组均未发现与雷帕霉素及其聚合物相关的不良反应。结论EXCEL支架治疗CAD安全有效。在降低主要心脏不良事件、预防再狭窄和LLL方面可获得与Cypher支架同样满意的临床效果。     

The paclitaxel‐eluting coroflex™ please stent study (PECOPS I): The 3‐year clinical follow‐up

Background : The evaluation of drug‐eluting devices in humans should include longterm follow‐up owing to risk of late target vessel thrombosis with the possible fatal sequel. Methods and Results : Therefore, the three‐year clinical outcome of the paclitaxeleluting Corofiex^® Please stent in patients with de‐novo coronary lesions was evaluated in the single‐arm PECOPS I pilot study. The clinical data of 123/125 (98.4%) of all patients included were available 3.05 ± 0.12 years following stent deployment. In the intention‐to‐treat analysis the incidence of cardiac death was 9/123 (7.3%), of myocardial infarction 4/123 (3.3%), and of in‐segment target lesion revascularization 14/123 (11.4%). Target lesion revascularizations tended (p = 0.30) to occur less frequently (9/96 (16.6%)) in those patients in whom the stent length was longer than the lesion (4.80 ± 2.71 mm) compared to 5/27 (18.5%) in those patients in whom the stent was shorter than the lesion (?3.0 ± 2.43 mm). Stent thromboses occurred in 2/123 (1.6%) patients during the first 6 months, one of which two days after premature discontinuation of clopidogrel. The total 3‐year MACE rate was 22/123 (17.9%). Conclusion : The present study describes the paclitaxel‐eluting Corotlex Please stent as a safe device with good long term performance when deployed in native coronary arteries. The occurrence of late major adverse events and late thromboses in particular seem to be very low. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.