Search

Background: Coronary bifurcation lesions represent a difficult problem regularly confronting interventional cardiologist, in part due to the lack of dedicated device., Objective: To investigate the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of the Tryton Side Branch Stent (Tryton Medical, Durham, NC, USA), a dedicated bare metal stent deployed in conjunction with a standard drug-eluting stent to treat bifurcation lesions., Methods: The SAFE-TRY is a prospective single arm multicenter registry including patients with de novo bifurcation lesions in native coronary arteries and syntax score <32. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 30 days that comprised cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included device, angiographic and procedural success, 9-month major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), and stent thrombosis (ST) rates (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01174433)., Results: Among 252 enrolled patients, 24% had diabetes and 35.3% unstable angina. True bifurcation lesions involving both branches occurred in 96.8% of cases with Medina classification 1.1.1 in 62%. The left anterior descending artery and the left main were treated in 70% and 8.3% of the patients, respectively. A 6 Fr guide catheter was used in 61% of the cases. Device, angiographic and procedural success rates were 99.6%, 99.6% and 97.2% respectively. The 30-day TVF was 2.8%; the 9-month MACCE rate was 13.7%, with target lesion revascularization being 4.4%. No definite ST occurred., Conclusions: This prospective, multicenter study confirmed the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of the Tryton Side Branch Stent to treat patients with de novo complex bifurcation lesions., (© 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gender-based differences in diabetic patients are understudied in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents., Methods: Data were obtained from a multicenter registry of 2420 consecutive patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who underwent PCI with paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents between 2003 and 2009. Among them, 679 (28.1%) women were compared to 1741 (71.9%) men in terms of clinical aspects and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Target vessel revascularization (TVR) and any revascularization were also reported., Results: Women were less numerous, older, used more insulin and showed more tortuous coronary arteries, while men were more frequently smokers and received larger stents. At the median follow-up of 24.3 months (interquartile range 12.3-39.7), MACE, TVR and any revascularization did not significantly differ between females and males (19.9% vs 18.7%, 12.2% vs 13.4%, 14.1% vs 15.1%, respectively). At multivariable analysis of the overall cohort, female gender was not a predictor of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-2.36, p=0.11), death (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84-1.24, p=0.86), MI (HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.92-2.36, p=0.11), and TLR (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85-1.52, p=0.38)., Conclusion: In this registry of diabetic patients treated by drug-eluting stents, women were less represented, older and needed more insulin compared to men who, on the other hand, received larger stents. Gender-related outcomes were similar and female sex did not predict MACE., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Drug-eluting stents are more effective in reducing restenosis than bare-metal stents. Paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) are the most widely used first-generation drug-eluting stents, but long-term comparative data on these are scant. The aim of the present report is to investigate the 6-year clinical outcomes of PES versus SES in a matched cohort of single-center registry patients., Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from the observational, monocentric registry of 632 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention between September 2002 and September 2005 with PES or SES. We assessed the composite and separate occurrence of the major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR)., Results: After a propensity 1 : 1 matching analysis, baseline clinical, procedural, and angiographic characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. Throughout the 6 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences between PES and SES in terms of MACE (P=0.52), all-cause death (P=0.24), myocardial infarction (P=0.25), stent thrombosis (P=0.38), and TLR (P=0.68). The sensitivity analysis on the total unmatched population confirmed this result, the stent type not being predictive of MACE (PES vs. SES group, hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.41, P=0.87) or TLR (PES vs. the SES group, hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.69-2.64, P=0.38)., Conclusion: In this 'real-life' registry, PES and SES showed a comparable safety and efficacy profile throughout the 6 years of follow-up. The increase in the rate of TLR was slow and comparable between the two groups, even though the 'late catch-up' phenomenon showed a different temporal pattern between PES and SES.

Background: Older patients and diabetes mellitus (DM) are rapidly increasing in Western world populations. The treatment of coronary artery disease in these patients is challenging because they are complex and at high risk. Performance of the two widely used drug-eluting stents (DES), i.e. sirolimus- (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), is understudied in this subset., Aim: We aimed to explore the impact of the first generation DES choice on mid term outcome in a large and unselected population of diabetic patients older than 65 years., Methods and Results: From a multicenter registry of 2,429 diabetic patients treated with sirolimus- (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), 1,417 patients ≥65 years old were analyzed overall and separately for groups aged 65-74 (67%) and ≥75 (33%) years old. SES (55%) were compared to PES (45%) in terms of major adverse cardiac events, including all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) throughout 1-to-5 year follow-up (median time 24 months). We failed to find at the unadjusted and adjusted analyses statistically significant differences in term of outcome between the two DES, both in the overall cohort and in the two different aged subgroups, also regardless of the insulin treatment., Conclusions: In this real-life multicenter registry, PES and SES showed a comparable safety and efficacy profile in diabetic patients older than 65 years throughout 1-to-5 years follow-up., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The treatment of elderly patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is challenging because this population is complex and greatly expanding. Drug-eluting stents (DES) generally improve the outcome in high-risk cases. We evaluated the clinical impact of different first-generation DES, i.e., sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), in this context. A prospective, nonrandomized, single-center, allcomers registry consecutively enrolling all patients aged ≥75 years eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES was carried out. Only one type of DES was implanted per protocol for each patient. Two groups were identified according to the type of implanted stent, i.e., SES and PES. The primary end point encompassed major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary end point encompassed the rate of definite/probable stent thrombosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). From June 2004 to May 2008, 151 patients were enrolled. Among them, 112 (74.2%) received SES and 39 (25.8%) received PES. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar, while few angiographic features (ostial location, stent diameter, proximal reference vessel diameter) showed minor differences. At the median follow-up of 22.6 months, primary and secondary end points did not significantly differ in terms of MACE (SES 12.5% vs PES 20.5%, P = 0.3), death (SES 5.4% vs PES 7.7%, P = 0.7), myocardial infarction (SES 4.5% vs PES 10.3%, P = 0.2), TLR (SES 2.7% vs PES 2.6%, P = 1.0), stent thrombosis (SES 1.8% vs PES 5.1%, P = 0.3), and TVR (SES 1.8% vs PES 0%, P = 0.6). In this real-world population of elderly patients treated by DES-PCI for CAD, the overall efficacy and safety have been excellent in both DES, and the choice between SES and PES did not influence the clinical outcome.