Search

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are superior to bare metal stents (BMSs) in decreasing restenosis rates across a wide range of patient and lesion subsets. However, widespread utilization of DESs raises concerns with regard to risks of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, the potential for late adverse events such as late thrombosis, and cost. Vessel diameter and lesion length have been previously identified as predictors for restenosis for DESs and BMSs. This study compared the clinical outcomes of DESs versus BMSs in large coronary arteries (> or =3.5 mm). A cohort of 233 patients who underwent single-vessel angioplasty with DES implantation in large vessels was compared with 233 propensity-matched patients who received BMSs in vessels with similar reference vessel diameters. Clinical outcomes at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year were compared between groups. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were similar. Target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization rates and the incidence of major adverse cardiac events were low and comparable between the 2 groups at all follow-up intervals. At 1 year, the primary outcome occurred in 8.5% of patients with DESs and 7.7% of patients with BMSs (p = 0.80). There were no episodes of subacute stent thrombosis or late thrombosis in either group. In conclusion, implantation of DESs in large coronary arteries confers no additional benefit compared with BMSs, and the 2 approaches are associated with equally favorable clinical outcomes at 1 year.

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been shown to support patients who are at high risk for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) or becoming hemodynamically unstable during PCI, but the longer term outcomes of these strategies are unknown. This study investigated the outcomes of high-risk patients who received a prophylactic IABP (P-IABP) versus patients who required rescue IABP (R-IABP) because of intraprocedural complications. Clinical outcomes of 68 consecutive patients (69 procedures) who underwent high-risk PCI with P-IABP support were compared with those of 46 patients who required R-IABP. Patients who presented with cardiogenic shock or acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and those who were on mechanical ventilators were excluded. Clinical baseline characteristics were similar between groups except for more diabetics and patients with hypercholesterolemia in the P-IABP group. The procedural success was higher in the P-IABP group, with lower in-hospital mortality and major complications, than in the R-IABP group. At 6 months, the mortality and major adverse cardiac event rates were lower in the P-IABP group (8% vs 29%, p < 0.01, and 12% vs 32%, p = 0.02, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that prophylactic insertion of an IABP is the only independent predictor of survival at 6 months. The incidence of vascular complications was low and comparable except for more major bleeding (15% vs 3%, p = 0.03) in the R-IABP group. In conclusion, patients who undergo high-risk PCI and then receive P-IABP support have favorable outcomes compared with those who require R-IABP for intraprocedural complications. Therefore, in high-risk patients undergoing PCI, liberal use of a P-IABP should be considered.

Longer stent length has remained associated with the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era; therefore, we aimed to determine clinical outcomes after extensive stent coverage with DES implantations in single coronary lesions. We evaluated the data from 99 consecutive patients treated with extensive DES coverage, defined as > or = 50 mm (mean 63.3 +/- 13.2, range 50 to 115), and a concurrent series of 466 patients with < or = 24-mm DES length (mean 18.4 +/- 3.8, range 8 to 24). The periprocedural, 1-, and 6-month outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. The baseline characteristics were mostly comparable between the 2 groups, and procedural and in-hospital outcomes were similar. Although the incidence of death and myocardial infarction at follow-up were comparable, the combined end points of target lesion revascularization plus MACEs at 6 months occurred more often with extensive stent coverage. Multivariate analysis revealed stent length to be the only independent predictor of target lesion revascularization plus MACEs. Patients treated with extensive DES coverage had similar procedural success, major in-hospital complications, and death and myocardial infarction at follow-up, but had more combined adverse events because of an overall higher target lesion revascularization rate.

This study was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) on the outcomes of diabetic patients. Recent data with drug-eluting stents have shown improved clinical outcomes in diabetic patients. This study compared outcomes between the 2 available drug-eluting stents, SESs and PESs. From the prospective drug-eluting stent registries at the investigators' institution, 1,320 consecutive diabetic patients treated with SESs (n=873, 1,293 lesions) and PESs (n=447, 733 lesions) were identified and their in-hospital and 1- and 6-month clinical outcomes compared. Baseline characteristics showed more men, more patients with previous coronary bypass surgery, and smaller ejection fractions in the PES group and more obese patients in the SES group. Procedural characteristics were similar except for more left anterior descending artery and proximal lesions and the greater use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the SES group and more type C lesions, direct stenting, and stents per patient in the PES group. In-hospital complications were similar. Clinical follow-up at 1 month was also similar between the 2 groups, including subacute stent thrombosis. At 6 months, the 2 groups had similar mortality (7% vs 7%), myocardial infarctions (18% vs 21%), target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiac events (11% vs 12%), and late thrombosis (0.3% vs 0%). Subanalysis of insulin-treated diabetic patients showed no significant differences in outcomes in the 2 groups. No significant differences were found between SESs and PESs on Cox regression analysis for hazard ratios. In conclusion, SESs and PESs are associated with similar efficacy and safety with regard to repeat revascularization rates, major adverse cardiac events, and stent thrombosis up to 6 months for the treatment of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus regardless of insulin therapy.

We investigated the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DESs) for the treatment of patients who presented with in-stent restenosis (ISR) of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) and compared the in-hospital and 6-month clinical outcomes of DESs with those of intravascular brachytherapy and balloon angioplasty alone. Records of 187 patients who presented with ISR of SVGs were analyzed. Of these, 34 consecutive patients were treated with DES implantation, 93 were treated with intravascular brachytherapy (n = 60 with gamma-radiation, n = 33 with beta-radiation), and 60 patients underwent conventional treatment with balloon angioplasty alone. Clinical and angiographic characteristics at baseline were comparable between groups. The DES group had less non-Q-wave myocardial infarction than did the intravascular brachytherapy and balloon angioplasty groups (0%, 20%, and 26%, p = 0.003 and <0.001, respectively). At 6 months, death occurred in 0% of the DES group, 2% of the intravascular brachytherapy group, and 5% of the balloon angioplasty group (p = 0.36 and <0.18, respectively). Target lesion revascularization/major adverse cardiac events were similar in the intravascular brachytherapy and DES groups (12% and 3%, p = 0.13) and significantly decreased compared with patients who were treated with balloon angioplasty alone (55%, p <0.001 for the 2 comparisons). The results of this retrospective analysis suggest that DES implantation is at least as effective and safe as intravascular brachytherapy for the treatment of SVG ISR and that these treatment modalities are superior to balloon angioplasty alone.