Search

Importance: Although intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) guidance promotes favorable outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), many catheterization laboratories worldwide lack access., Objective: To investigate whether systematic implementation of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) to assist angiography-guided PCI could be an alternative strategy to IVUS guidance during stent implantation., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, open-label, noninferiority clinical trial enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with chronic or acute coronary syndrome and angiographically confirmed native coronary artery stenosis requiring PCI. Patients were enrolled in 6 cardiac centers in Korea from February 23, 2017, to August 23, 2021, and follow-up occurred through August 25, 2022. All principal analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle., Interventions: After successful guidewire crossing of the first target lesion, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either QCA- or IVUS-guided PCI., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was target lesion failure at 12 months, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed assuming an event rate of 8%, with the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI of the absolute difference in 12-month target lesion failure (QCA-guided PCI minus IVUS-guided PCI) to be less than 3.5 percentage points for noninferiority., Results: The trial included 1528 patients who underwent PCI with QCA guidance (763; mean [SD] age, 64.1 [9.9] years; 574 males [75.2%]) or IVUS guidance (765; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.5] years; 622 males [81.3%]). The post-PCI mean (SD) minimum lumen diameter was similar between the QCA- and IVUS-guided PCI groups (2.57 [0.55] vs 2.60 [0.58] mm, P = .26). Target lesion failure at 12 months occurred in 29 of 763 patients (3.81%) in the QCA-guided PCI group and 29 of 765 patients (3.80%) in the IVUS-guided PCI group (absolute risk difference, 0.01 percentage points [95% CI, -1.91 to 1.93 percentage points]; hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.60-1.68]; P = .99). There was no difference in the rates of stent edge dissection (1.2% vs 0.7%, P = .25), coronary perforation (0.2% vs 0.4%, P = .41), or stent thrombosis (0.53% vs 0.66%, P = .74) between the QCA- and IVUS-guided PCI groups. The risk of the primary end point was consistent regardless of subgroup, with no significant interaction., Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that QCA and IVUS guidance during PCI showed similar rates of target lesion failure at 12 months. However, due to the lower-than-expected rates of target lesion failure in this trial, the findings should be interpreted with caution., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02978456.

Introduction: Angiography remains the gold standard for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, it is prone to suboptimal stent results due to the visual estimation of coronary measurements. Although the benefit of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI is becoming increasingly recognised, IVUS is not affordable for many catheterisation laboratories. Thus, a more practical and standardised angiography-based approach is necessary to support stent implantation., Methods and Analysis: The Quantitative Coronary Angiography versus Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation trial is a randomised, investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial comparing the quantitative coronary angiography (QCA)-guided PCI strategy with IVUS-guided PCI in all-comer patients with significant coronary artery disease. A novel, standardised, QCA-based PCI protocol for the QCA-guided group will be provided to all participating operators, while the PCI optimisation criteria will be predefined for both strategies. A total of 1528 patients will be randomised to either group at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is the 12-month cumulative incidence of target-lesion failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction or ischaemia-driven target-lesion revascularisation. Clinical follow-up assessments are scheduled at 1, 6 and 12 months for all patients enrolled in the study., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval for this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center (no. 2017-0060). Informed consent will be obtained from every participant. The study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journal articles and disseminated through public forums and academic conference presentations. Cost-effectiveness and secondary imaging analyses will be shared in secondary papers., Trial Registration Number: NCT02978456., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This study sought to evaluate the impact of triple antiplatelet therapy on clinical outcomes in patients treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) for coronary artery disease. There are limited data regarding the impact of triple antiplatelet therapy in patients who underwent implantation of second-generation DES. We planned to randomly assign 2,110 patients treated with second-generation DES to triple (aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol) and dual (aspirin, clopidogrel, and placebo) antiplatelet therapy groups. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year since randomization. The study was stopped early owing to slow enrollment. In total, 404 patients (202 patients each in the triple and dual antiplatelet therapy groups) were finally enrolled. At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 3.6% and 9.4% of patients in the triple and dual antiplatelet therapy groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] of the triple group 0.396; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.166 to 0.949; p = 0.038). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the occurrence of a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke (HR 0.583; 95% CI 0.229 to 1.481; p = 0.256). However, the rates of TVR were significantly lower in the triple antiplatelet therapy group than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (HR 0.118; 95% CI 0.015 to 0.930; p = 0.043). In conclusion, triple antiplatelet therapy with cilostazol after implantation of second-generation DES improved clinical outcomes, mainly by reducing TVR., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention techniques using drug-eluting stents for bifurcation coronary lesions., Background: The optimal bifurcation stenting technique needs to be evaluated., Methods: The trial included 2 randomization studies separated by the presence of side branch (SB) stenosis for patients having non-left main bifurcation lesions. For 306 patients without SB stenosis, the routine final kissing balloon or leave-alone approaches were compared. Another randomization study compared the crush or single-stent approaches for 419 patients with SB stenosis., Results: Between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups for nondiseased SB lesions, angiographic restenosis occurred in 17.9% versus 9.3% (p=0.064), comprising 15.1% versus 3.7% for the main branch (p=0.004) and 2.8% versus 5.6% for the SB (p=0.50) from 214 patients (69.9%) receiving 8-month angiographic follow-up. Incidence of major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization over 1 year was 14.0% versus 11.6% between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups (p=0.57). In another randomization study for diseased SB lesions, 28.2% in the single-stent group received SB stents. From 300 patients (71.6%) receiving angiographic follow-up, between the crush and single-stent groups, angiographic restenosis rate was 8.4% versus 11.0% (p=0.44), comprising 5.2% versus 4.8% for the main branch (p=0.90) and 3.9% versus 8.3% for the SB (p=0.12). One-year major adverse cardiac events rate between the crush and single-stent groups was 17.9% versus 18.5% (p=0.84)., Conclusions: Angiographic and clinical outcomes were excellent after percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents with any stent technique for non-left main bifurcation lesions once the procedure was performed successfully., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The risks and benefits of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy remain unclear., Methods and Results: This prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized comparison trial was conducted in 24 clinical centers in Korea. In total, 5045 patients who received drug-eluting stents and were free of major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding for at least 12 months after stent placement were enrolled between July 2007 and July 2011. Patients were randomized to receive aspirin alone (n=2514) or clopidogrel plus aspirin (n=2531). The primary end point was a composite of death resulting from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke 24 months after randomization. At 24 months, the primary end point occurred in 57 aspirin-alone group patients (2.4%) and 61 dual-therapy group patients (2.6%; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.35; P=0.75). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of the individual risks of death resulting from any cause, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke. Major bleeding occurred in 24 (1.1%) and 34 (1.4%) of the aspirin-alone group and dual-therapy group patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.20; P=0.20)., Conclusions: Among patients who were on 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy without complications, an additional 24 months of dual antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin alone did not reduce the risk of the composite end point of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke., Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01186146.

Angiographic and clinical outcomes remain relatively unfavorable for diabetic patients even after the use of drug-eluting stent. This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared the relative efficacy and safety of resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was noninferiority of angiographic in-segment late loss at 9 months. Clinical events were also monitored for at least 12 months. Patient recruitment was prematurely stopped after enrollment of 256 patients (127 in R-ZES group and 129 in SES) because of discontinuing production of SES. The R-ZES was noninferior to the SES for 9-month in-segment late loss (0.34 ± 0.30 vs 0.39 ± 0.43 mm; difference -0.048; 95% confidence interval -0.157 to 0.061; upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval 0.044; p <0.001 for noninferiority). In addition, in-stent late loss (0.22 ± 0.29 vs 0.21 ± 0.40 mm, p = 0.849) and the rates of in-segment (1.2% vs 6.7%, p = 0.119) and in-stent (1.2% vs 3.3%, p = 0.621) binary restenoses were similar between the 2 groups. At 12 months, there were no statistical differences between the 2 groups in the incidence of any clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, and composite outcomes). In conclusion, despite having reduced power because of early study termination, our study suggests that the R-ZES has noninferior angiographic outcomes at 9 months to the SES in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease., (Crown Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare the safety and efficacy of the new Coroflex™ Please stents with conventional Taxus™ Liberte stents in patients with coronary artery lesions., Background: The Coroflex™ Please stent is a new version of paclitaxel-eluting stent, and observational cohort studies have reported similar angiographic and clinical outcomes as with the first-generation stents. However, it has not been directly compared with the early generation paclitaxel-eluting stents in a multicenter, prospective, and randomized study., Methods: We randomly assigned 319 patients to receive Coroflex™ Please stents (159 patients; 198 lesions) or Taxus™ Liberte stents (160 patients; 232 lesions). The primary end point was angiographic in-segment late luminal loss at 9 months., Results: Most baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between these two groups. The Coroflex™ Please and Taxus™ Liberte stents showed similar in-segment late loss (0.40 ± 0.53 mm vs. 0.39 ± 0.52 mm, P = 0.98) and rates of in-segment binary restenosis (22.2% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.48) at 9 months. After clinical follow-up for 12 months, the two groups had similar rates of death (1.3% vs. 1.3%, P > 0.99), myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.22), stent thrombosis (2.5% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.72), and target-lesion revascularization (7.5% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.99)., Conclusions: The Coroflex™ Please stent resulted in similar angiographic and clinical outcomes as the Taxus™ Liberte stent in patients with coronary artery lesions., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: It remains unclear whether there are differences in the safety and efficacy outcomes between everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in contemporary practice., Methods and Results: We prospectively enrolled 6166 consecutive patients who received EES (3081 patients) and SES (3085 patients) between April 2008 and June 2010, using data from the Interventional Cardiology Research In-Cooperation Society-Drug-Eluting Stents Registry. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target-vessel revascularization (TVR). At 2 years of follow-up, the 2 study groups did not differ significantly in crude risk of the primary end point (12.1% for EES versus 12.4% for SES; HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84-1.12, P=0.66). After adjustment for differences in baseline risk factors, the adjusted risk for the primary end point remained similar for the 2 stent types (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82-1.12, P=0.60). There were also no differences between the stent groups in the adjusted risks of the individual component of death (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.67-1.30, P=0.68), MI (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79-1.18, P=0.74), and TVR (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82-1.49, P=0.51). The adjusted risk of stent thrombosis also was similar (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.84, P=0.75)., Conclusions: In contemporary practice of percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, the unrestricted use of EES and SES showed similar rates of safety and efficacy outcomes with regard to death, MI, sent thrombosis, and TVR. Future longer-term follow-up is needed to better define the relative benefits of these drug-eluting stents., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01070420.

Objectives: This study compared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for long coronary lesions., Background: Outcomes remain relatively unfavorable for stent-based coronary intervention of lesions with long diseased segments., Methods: This randomized, multicenter, prospective trial compared the use of long EES with SES in 450 patients with long (≥ 25 mm) native coronary lesions. The primary endpoint of the trial was in-segment late luminal loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up., Results: The EES and SES groups had similar baseline characteristics. Lesion length was 34.0 ± 15.4 mm in the EES group and 34.3 ± 13.5 mm in the SES group (p = 0.85). Nine-month angiographic follow-up was performed in 80% of the EES group and 81% of the SES group (p = 0.69). In-segment late loss as the primary study endpoint was significantly larger in the EES group than in the SES group (0.17 ± 0.41 mm vs. 0.09 ± 0.30 mm, p for noninferiority = 0.96, p for superiority = 0.04). The in-segment binary restenosis rate was also higher in the EES group than in the SES group (7.3% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.046). However, in-stent late loss (0.22 ± 0.43 mm vs. 0.18 ± 0.28 mm, p = 0.29) and in-stent binary restenosis rate (3.9% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.53) were similar among the 2 groups. The incidence of any clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and composite outcomes) was not statistically different between the 2 groups., Conclusions: For patients with long native coronary artery disease, EES implantation was associated with greater angiographic in-segment late loss and higher rates of in-segment restenosis compared with SES implantation. However, clinical outcomes were both excellent and not statistically different., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Drug-eluting stents significantly improved angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare metal stents in diabetic patients. However, a comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients has not been evaluated. Therefore we compared effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus., Methods and Results: This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared everolimus-eluting stent (n=149) and sirolimus-eluting stent (n=151) implantation in diabetic patients. The primary end point was noninferiority of angiographic in-segment late loss at 8 months. Clinical events were also monitored for at least 12 months. Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for 8-month in-segment late loss (0.23 ± 0.27 versus 0.37 ± 0.52 mm; difference, -0.13 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.25 to -0.02; upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval, -0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority), with reductions in in-stent restenosis (0% versus 4.7%; P=0.029) and in-segment restenosis (0.9% versus 6.5%; P=0.035). However, in-stent late loss (0.11 ± 0.26 versus 0.20 ± 0.49 mm; P=0.114) was not statistically different between the 2 groups. At 12 months, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (0.7% versus 2.6%; P=0.317), death (1.3% versus 3.3%; P=0.448), and myocardial infarction (0% versus 1.3%; P=0.498) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.0% versus 5.3%; P=0.218), were also not statistically different between the 2 groups., Conclusion: Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in reducing in-segment late loss and reduced angiographic restenosis at 8 months in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether cilostazol reduces intimal hyperplasia in patients undergoing long zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation (stent length: ≥ 30 mm) for native long coronary lesions (length: ≥ 25 mm)., Background: Restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation remains a significant clinical problem in long coronary lesions., Methods: Patients (n = 499) were assigned randomly to triple (aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol, triple group: n = 250) or dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel and placebo, dual group: n = 249) for 8 months after long zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at the 8-month angiography according to the intention-to-treat principle., Results: The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. The in-stent (0.56 ± 0.55 mm vs. 0.68 ± 0.59 mm, p = 0.045) and in-segment (0.32 ± 0.54 mm vs. 0.47 ± 0.54 mm, p = 0.006) late loss were significantly lower in the triple versus dual group, as were 8-month in-stent restenosis (10.8% vs. 19.1%, p = 0.016), in-segment restenosis (12.2% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.028), and 12-month ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization (5.2% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.042) rates. At 12 months, major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization tended to be lower in the triple group than the dual group (7.2% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.07). Percent intimal hyperplasia volume by volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis was reduced from 27.1 ± 13.2% for the dual group to 22.1 ± 9.9% for the triple group (p = 0.017)., Conclusions: Patients receiving triple antiplatelet therapy after long zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation had decreased extent of late luminal loss, percent intimal hyperplasia volume, and angiographic restenosis, resulting in a reduced risk of 12-month target lesion revascularization compared with patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. (Triple Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after ABT578-Eluting Stent; NCT00589927)., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Meta-analysis of randomized trials showed superior efficacy and similar safety of drug-eluting stent over bare-metal stent in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. However, long-term relative outcomes of sirolimus- (SES) vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) have not been fully evaluated in randomized studies. This study compared long-term safety and efficacy of these two stents in STEMI., Methods: A total of 308 STEMI patients were randomly treated with SES (n = 154) or PES (n = 154). Three-year clinical outcomes were assessed. Primary outcome of interest was incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Secondary outcome of interest was occurrence of very late stent thrombosis., Results: Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. During follow-up, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of death (6.5% for SES and 10.4% for PES, p = 0.22), MI (2.6% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.75), stent thrombosis (1.9% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.72), TVR (3.9% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.15) and MACE (12.3% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.12). Eight patients in overall population had stent thrombosis: definite 3, probable 1, and possible 4. Cumulative incidence of stent thrombosis was gradually increased; 0.6% at 30 days, 0.6% at 1 year, 1.6% at 2 years, and 2.6% at 3 years. Very late stent thrombosis, definite or probable, occurred in 0.6% for both., Conclusion: Among non-selected STEMI patients who underwent primary angioplasty, both SES and PES might be safe and SES showed similar three-year clinical outcomes compared to PES., (Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We compared 4-year efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM)., Background: Four-year comparison of SES with PES in diabetic patients has not been evaluated in a randomized manner., Methods: This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared SES (n = 200) and PES (n = 200) implantation in diabetic patients. We evaluated 4-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR)., Results: The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 2 years, TLR (3.5% vs. 11.0%, log-rank, p < 0.01) and MACE (3.5% vs. 12.5%, log-rank, p < 0.01) were significantly lower in SES versus PES group with no difference of death or MI. At 4 years there were no differences in death (3.0% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.45) or MI (1.5% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.99) between SES and PES group. The TLR (7.5% vs. 12.0%, log-rank, p = 0.10) and MACE (11.0% vs. 16.0%, log-rank, p = 0.10) were statistically not different between SES and PES group. At multivariate Cox regression, post-procedural minimal lumen diameter (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24 to 0.81, p < 0.01), hypercholesterolemia (HR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.29 to 3.79, p < 0.01), and use of intravascular ultrasound (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.99, p = 0.049) were independent predictors of 4-year MACE., Conclusions: Superiority of SES over PES during 2 years was attenuated between 2 years and 4 years in diabetic patients. Use of intravascular ultrasound and larger post-procedural minimal lumen diameter were independent predictors of the improved long-term clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in comparison with the established and widely used sirolimus- (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in routine clinical practice., Background: Whether ZES might provide similar clinical and angiographic outcomes in a broad spectrum of patients compared with SES or PES is undetermined., Methods: We performed a single-blind, multicenter, prospectively randomized trial to compare ZES with SES and PES in 2,645 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) at 12 months. A noninferiority comparison (ZES vs. SES) and a superiority comparison (ZES vs. PES) were performed for the primary end point., Results: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar in the 3 groups. At 12 months, the ZES group showed noninferior rates of MACE compared with the SES group (10.2% vs. 8.3%, p for noninferiority = 0.01, p for superiority = 0.17) and significantly fewer MACE than the PES group (10.2% vs. 14.1%, p for superiority = 0.01). The incidence of death or myocardial infarction was similar among the groups (ZES vs. SES vs. PES, 5.8% vs. 6.9% vs. 7.6%, respectively, p = 0.31). The incidence of stent thrombosis was significantly lower in the SES group (ZES vs. SES vs. PES, 0.7% vs. 0% vs. 0.8%, respectively, p = 0.02)., Conclusions: In this large-scale, practical randomized trial, the use of ZES resulted in similar rates of MACE compared with SES and in fewer MACE compared with PES at 12 months. (Comparison of the Efficacy and the Safety of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent and PacliTaxel-Eluting Stent for Coronary Lesions; NCT00418067)., (Copyright © 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although cilostazol has decreased restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) after drug-eluting stent implantation, it is not known if this effect is durable at 2 years. We analyzed 2 randomized studies (Drug-Eluting stenting followed by Cilostazol treatment reduces LAte REstenosis in patients with DIABETES mellitus and Drug-Eluting Stenting Followed by Cilostazol treatment reduces LAte REstenosis in patients with LONG native coronary lesions trials) in which 900 patients were randomly assigned to triple antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol; triple group, n = 450) and dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel; standard group, n = 450) for 6 months in patients with diabetes or long lesions receiving drug-eluting stents. We evaluated 2-year major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and TLR. Nine-month TLRs and MACEs were significantly decreased in the triple versus standard group. At 2 years, the triple group sowed significantly decreased TLRs (4.2% vs 9.1%, hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.78, p = 0.004) and MACEs (5.6% vs 10.4%, hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.84, p = 0.008) compared to the standard group with no differences in death and MI. In subgroup analysis, triple antiplatelet therapy decrease of 2-year TLR was favorable in all subgroups, especially in patients with paclitaxel-eluting stents, diabetes mellitus, small vessels, long lesions, and left anterior descending coronary artery lesions. In conclusion, compared to the standard group, initial benefit in decreases of 9-month TLRs and MACEs in the triple group was sustained at 2 years with no differences in death or MI. Triple antiplatelet therapy decrease of 2-year TLR was favorable in all subgroups, especially in patients with high-risk profiles., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stent fractures after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation have not been evaluated sufficiently in patients with long coronary artery disease., Methods: This study comprised of 415 patients, who were enrolled in the Long-DES-II study and had a complete serial angiography both before and after procedure and also at follow-up. The lesions were > or =25 mm in length and were randomly treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES, 210 lesions) or paclitaxel-eluting stent (205 lesions)., Results: DES fracture was identified in 7 lesions (1.7%): 1 minor, 3 moderate, and 3 severe fractures. Most of the fractures occurred in patients who received SES (85.7%) and in the right coronary artery (RCA) lesions (71.4%). Lesions with fracture had a smaller minimal lumen diameter before procedure than lesions without fracture (0.38+/-0.55 vs. 0.71+/-0.46 mm, p=0.043). However, acute gain (2.28+/-0.39 vs. 1.44+/-0.60 mm, p=0.001) and late loss (0.81+/-0.49 vs. 0.42+/-0.50 mm, p=0.033) in analysis segment were greater in lesions with fracture. By multivariate analysis, the independent predictor of fracture was the RCA lesion (Odds ratio, 7.81; 95% CI, 1.45 approximately 42.04; p=0.017). Although one patient had an intermediate angiographic narrowing at the fracture site, there was no adverse cardiac event related with fracture., Conclusions: The incidence of stent fracture in long DES implantation was not common and was associated with SES implantation or RCA lesions. Fortunately, the clinical prognosis of DES fracture was somewhat benign.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM)., Background: Drug-eluting stent implantation significantly improved the angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare-metal stent implantation in diabetic patients. However, comparison of SES with PES in diabetic patients has not been sufficiently evaluated., Methods: This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared SES (n = 200) and PES implantation (n = 200) for diabetic patients (n = 400). The primary end point was in-segment restenosis at 6 months according to intention-to-treat principle., Results: The 2 groups had similar baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Six-month in-stent (3.4% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001) and in-segment restenosis (4.0% vs. 20.8%, p < 0.001) and 9-month target lesion revascularization (2.0% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.017) were significantly lower in the SES versus the PES group. The incidence of death (0% in SES vs. 0.5% in PES, p = 0.999) or myocardial infarction (0.5% in SES vs. 0.5% in PES, p = 0.999) at 9-month follow-up was not statistically different between the 2 groups. Major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 9 months (2.0% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.010) were lower in the SES versus the PES group., Conclusions: Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation is superior in reducing angiographic restenosis and improving 9-month clinical outcomes in patients with DM and coronary artery disease compared with PES implantation.

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., ((c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Objectives: We sought to evaluate the impact of cilostazol on neointimal hyperplasia after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM)., Background: Although cilostazol has reduced the extent of neointimal hyperplasia and restenosis in patients after bare-metal stent implantation, it is not known whether this effect occurs after DES implantation in diabetic patients., Methods: This randomized, multicenter, prospective study compared triple antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol, triple group, n = 200) and dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel, standard group, n = 200) for 6 months in patients with DM receiving DES. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 6 months., Results: The 2 groups had similar baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. The in-stent (0.25 +/- 0.53 mm vs. 0.38 +/- 0.54 mm, p = 0.025) and in-segment (0.42 +/- 0.50 mm vs. 0.53 +/- 0.49 mm, p = 0.031) late loss were significantly lower in the triple versus standard group, as were 6-month in-segment restenosis (8.0% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.033) and 9-month target lesion revascularization (TLR) (2.5% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.034). At 9 months, major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and TLR, tended to be lower in the triple than in the standard group (3.0% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.066). Multivariate analysis showed that sirolimus-eluting stents and the use of cilostazol were strong predictors of reduced restenosis or TLR., Conclusions: Triple antiplatelet therapy after DES implantation decreased angiographic restenosis and extent of late loss, resulting in a reduced risk of 9-month TLR compared with dual antiplatelet therapy in diabetic patients.

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of sex differences on fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: The FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study demonstrated that FFR-guided PCI improves outcomes compared with an angiography-guided strategy. The role of FFR-guided PCI in women versus men has not been evaluated. Methods: We analyzed 2-year data from the FAME study in the 744 men and 261 women with multivessel coronary disease, who were randomized to angiography- or FFR-guided PCI. Statistical comparisons based on sex were stratified by treatment method. Results: Although women were older and had significantly higher rates of hypertension than men did, there were no differences in the rates of major adverse cardiac events (20.3% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.923) and its individual components at 2 years. FFR values were significantly higher in women than in men (0.75 ± 0.18 vs. 0.71 ± 0.17, p = 0.001). The proportion of functionally significant lesions (FFR ≤ 0.80) was lower in women than in men for lesions with 50% to 70% stenosis (21.1% vs. 39.5%, p < 0.001) and for lesions with 70% to 90% stenosis (71.9% vs. 82.0%, p = 0.019). An FFR-guided strategy resulted in similar relative risk reductions for death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization in men and in women. There were no interactions between sex and treatment method for any outcome variables. Conclusions: In comparison with men, angiographic lesions of similar severity are less likely to be ischemia-producing in women. An FFR-guided PCI strategy is equally beneficial in women as it is in men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]