Search

Previous studies have suggested that angiographically detected peristent contrast staining (PSS) at follow-up may predict subsequent very late stent thrombosis. The Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS- AMI) trial was a dual-arm, factorial, randomized trial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions. All follow-up angiograms (1,330 lesions in 1,115 patients, median time 13.3 months) without major cardiovascular events before follow-up angiography were analyzed at a core laboratory blinded to clinical events for the presence of PSS (defined as contrast staining outside the stent contour extending to ≥20% of the stent diameter). Corresponding follow-up intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) data (275 lesions in 248 patients) were also evaluated to assess the mechanisms of PSS. PSS was present in 23 patients (2.1%) at follow-up and was not more common with paclitaxel-eluting than with bare-metal stents. All 6 PSS patients with follow-up IVUS had stent malapposition (vs 41.2% malapposition in the follow-up IVUS cohort). Comparing poststent and follow-up IVUS, 2 patients had late acquired and 4 had persistent malapposition; all 6 showed positive vessel remodeling from baseline to follow-up (mean vessel area 22.0 ± 8.0 to 32.4 ± 11.7 mm², p = 0.07). During 3-year follow-up, stent thrombosis developed in no patient with PSS compared with 8 PSS-negative patients (0% vs 0.8%, p = 0.68). The rates of revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events were also not increased in PSS patients. In conclusion, in the large-scale HORIZONS-AMI trial, PSS at angiographic follow-up was infrequent and was associated with late stent malapposition and positive remodeling but was independent of stent type. Identification of PSS was not associated with subsequent stent thrombosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for management of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend culprit artery-only revascularization (CULPRIT) based on safety concerns during noninfarct-related artery intervention. However, the data to support this safety concern are scant. Searches were performed in PubMed/EMBASE/CENTRAL for studies evaluating multivessel revascularization versus CULPRIT in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD). A multivessel revascularization strategy had to be performed at the time of CULPRIT or during the same hospitalization. Early (≤30-day) and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Among 19 studies (23 arms) that evaluated 61,764 subjects with STEMI and MVD, multivessel revascularization was performed in a minority of patients (16%). For early outcomes, there was no significant difference for outcomes of mortality, MI, stroke, and target vessel revascularization, with a 44% decrease in risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.81) with multivessel revascularization compared to CULPRIT. Similarly, for long-term outcomes (follow-up 2.0 ± 1.1 years), there was no difference for outcomes of MI, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis, with 33%, 43%, and 53% decreases in risk of mortality, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively, and major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.72) with multivessel revascularization compared to CULPRIT. In conclusion, in patients with STEMI and MVD, multivessel revascularization appears to be safe compared to culprit artery-only revascularization. These findings support the need for a large-scale randomized trial to evaluate revascularization strategies in patients with STEMI and MVD. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Recent data on drug-eluting stents have shown improved clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus. However, the relative efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) remains controversial. Therefore, a meta-analysis of randomized trials was performed to compare SES with PES exclusively in patients with diabetes. The published research was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from January 2001 to April 2009. All randomized trials involving head-to-head comparison of SES versus PES in patients with diabetes were examined for analysis. A total of 5 randomized trials were included in the present meta-analysis, involving 1,173 patients (594 in the SES group, 579 in the PES group). SES were significantly more effective in the reduction of target lesion revascularization (5.1% vs 11.4%, odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 0.64, p <0.001) and angiographic binary (≥50%) restenosis (5.6% vs 16.4%, OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.48, p <0.001) compared to PES. In contrast, the differences between SES and PES were not statistically significant with respect to cardiac death (2.2% vs 2.9%, OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.47, p = 0.35), myocardial infarction (1.5% vs 2.6%, OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.31, p = 0.19), and stent thrombosis (0.6% vs 1.2%, OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.84, p = 0.35). In conclusion, SES are superior to PES in reducing the incidences of restenosis and target lesion revascularization in patients with diabetes, with nonsignificant differences in terms of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]