Search

Background: Although some studies found improved coronary flow and myocardial salvage when stent implantation was deferred, the DANAMI-3-DEFER (Third DANish Study of Optimal Acute Treatment of Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction) did not show any improvement in clinical outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and deferred stenting.Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the effect of deferred stent implantation on infarct size, myocardial salvage, and microvascular obstruction (MVO) in patients with STEMI.Methods: In the present DANAMI-3 substudy, a total of 510 patients with STEMI were randomized to PCI with deferred versus immediate stent implantation. The patients underwent a cardiac magnetic resonance examination before discharge after the index procedure and again 3 months later. The primary endpoint was final infarct size.Results: Deferred stenting did not reduce final infarct size (9% left ventricle [LV]; interquartile range [IQR]: 3% to 18% vs. 10% LV; IQR: 3% to 18%; p = 0.67). Similarly, deferred stenting was not associated with myocardial salvage index (66%; IQR: 50% to 89% vs. 67%; IQR: 49% to 88%; p = 0.80) or presence of MVO (43% vs. 42%; p = 0.78). In a post hoc analysis, stent length was the only subgroup of 7 that had an effect on outcome. In patients with a stent length ≥24 mm, deferred stenting reduced the final infarct size (6% LV; IQR: 2% to 18% vs. 13% LV; IQR: 7% to 23%; p = 0.006; and p for interaction = 0.005).Conclusions: In the DANAMI-3-DEFER cardiac magnetic resonance substudy, routine deferred stenting did not reduce infarct size or MVO and did not increase myocardial salvage. These results do not support the use of routine deferred stenting in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI. (DANish Study of Optimal Acute Treatment of Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction [DANAMI-3]; NCT01435408). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare long-term clinical outcomes after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background: The evidence of long-term efficacy and safety after implantation of DES in patients with complex lesions is scarce. Methods: We randomly assigned 626 patients with STEMI referred within 12 h to have a DES or a BMS implanted in the infarct-related lesion with or without distal protection during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Results: At 3 years, target lesion revascularization was 6.1% in the DES group compared with 16.3% in the BMS group (p < 0.001), and the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 11.5% versus 18.2%, respectively (p = 0.02). Whereas all-cause mortality did not differ significantly, the rate of cardiac death was higher in the DES group, 6.1% versus 1.9% for the BMS group (p = 0.01). The occurrence of reinfarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis was similar. Conclusions: Implantation of DES in patients with STEMI reduces the long-term rate of major adverse cardiac events compared with BMS, but patients with DES had a higher risk of cardiac death not attributed to myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. (Drug Elution and Distal Protection During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [DEDICATION]; NCT00192868) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Our purpose was to evaluate the long-term use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. Background: Although the use of SES has proved to be effective in patients with simple coronary artery lesions, there are limited data of the long-term outcome of patients with complex coronary artery lesions. Methods: We randomly assigned 322 patients with total coronary occlusions or lesions located in bifurcations, ostial, or angulated segments of the coronary arteries to have SES or BMS implanted. Results: At 3 years, major adverse cardiac events had occurred in 20 patients (12%) in the SES group and in 59 patients (38%) in the BMS group (p < 0.001). Four versus 2 patients suffered a cardiac death (p = NS), and 5 versus 1 died of a noncardiac disease (p = NS) in the SES versus the BMS group. Six patients in the SES group versus 15 patients in the BMS group suffered a myocardial infarction (p < 0.05) during the 3-year observation period, and target lesion revascularization was performed in 8 patients (4.9%) versus 53 patients (33.8%), respectively (p < 0.001); of these, 4 in the SES versus 7 in the BMS group were performed between 1 and 3 years after the index treatment (p = NS). According to revised definitions, stent thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (3.1%) in the SES group and in 7 patients (4.4%) in the BMS group (p = NS); very late stent thrombosis was observed in 4 versus 1 patient. Conclusions: A continued benefit was observed up to 3 years after implantation of SES in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. The rate of late adverse events was similar in the 2 groups, and stent thromboses occurred rarely after 1 year. (Sirolimus Eluting Stents in Complex Coronary Lesions [SCANDSTENT]; NCT00151658) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: The purpose of the SCANDSTENT study was to evaluate the use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in complex coronary lesions. Background: The use of SES improves angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in simple coronary artery lesions, but there is limited evidence of their safety and efficacy when implanted in complex lesions. Methods: We randomly assigned 322 patients with symptomatic complex coronary artery disease to receive either SES or BMS. The lesions were occluded (36%), bifurcational (34%), ostial (22%), or angulated (8%) in morphology. The primary end point was the difference in minimal lumen diameter six months after stent implantation. Results: The patients were well matched in terms of demographic and angiographic baseline characteristics; 18% had diabetes. The reference vessel diameter was 2.86 mm in mean, and the lesion length 18.0 mm. At follow-up, patients who received SES had a minimal lumen diameter of 2.48 mm compared with 1.65 mm in those who received BMS (p < 0.001), a diameter stenosis of 19.3% versus 43.8% (p < 0.001), and 2.0% versus 31.9% developed restenosis (p < 0.001). The rate of major adverse cardiac events was 4.3% with SES versus 29.3% with BMS (p < 0.001), and stent thrombosis was observed in 0.6% in the SES group versus 3.1% in the BMS group (p = 0.15). Conclusions: The use of SES markedly reduced restenosis and the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events in patients with complex coronary artery lesions without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]