Search

Background: The clinical impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and implantation of overlapping stents (OS) using platforms with the same versus different pharmacological characteristics is unknown. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of PCI with OS according to their pharmacological characteristics.Methods: In this observational single-center registry, we included all PCI performed from April 2014 to December 2018 in which overlapping drug-eluting stents were implanted. Two groups were created according to whether the stents release the same drug [homogeneous: (HO)] or different [heterogeneous: (HE)]. The primary endpoint was the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR). Clinical assessment was performed after the procedure, bianually and at the end of follow-up (June 2019).Results: 381 lesions with OS (HO: 209; HE: 172) were included (75.1% male, 66.7 ± 11.6 years). Clinical presentation was stable coronary artery disease in 49.9%. Syntax score was 23.7 ± 13.3. The number of OS implanted was 2.2 ± 0.5 and the total stent length was 59.5 ± 20.1 mm (HE: 61.5 ± 21.6 vs. HO: 57.8 ± 18.8 mm; p < 0.01). After a median follow-up of 21 months, the HE group showed a lower TLR rate than the HO group (HE:2.3% vs HO:7.2%; p = 0.03). The rates of cardiac death (p = 0.44), myocardial infarction (p = 0.36) and stent thrombosis (p = 0.85) were similar between groups. In the multivariate analysis, the OS with homogeneous-drug devices was an independent predictor of a higher rate of TLR.Conclusions: PCI using OS with homogeneous pharmacological characteristics was associated with a higher rate of TLR in comparison with the implantation of OS with heterogeneous pharmacological characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) present as ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study evaluates the characteristics, management and outcomes of SCAD patients presenting as STEMI compared to non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). We analysed data from consecutive patients included in the prospective Spanish Registry on SCAD. All coronary angiograms were centrally reviewed. All adverse events were adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee. Between June 2015 to December 2020, 389 patients were included. Forty-two percent presented with STEMI and 56% with NSTEMI. STEMI patients showed a worse distal flow (TIMI flow 0–1 38% vs 19%, p < 0.001) and more severe (% diameter stenosis 85 ± 18 vs 75 ± 21, p < 0.001) and longer (42 ± 23 mm vs 35 ± 24 mm, p = 0.006) lesions. Patients with STEMI were more frequently treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (31% vs 16%, p < 0.001) and developed more frequently left ventricular systolic dysfunction (21% vs 8%, p < 0.001). No differences were found in combined major adverse events during admission (7% vs 5%, p = 0.463), but in-hospital reinfarctions (5% vs 1.4%, p = 0.039) and cardiogenic shock (2.6% vs 0%, p = 0.019) were more frequently seen in the STEMI group. At late follow-up (median 29 months) no differences were found in the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (13% vs 13%, p -value = 0.882) between groups. Patients with SCAD and STEMI had a worse angiographic profile and were more frequently referred to PCI compared to NSTEMI patients. Despite these disparities, both short and long-term prognosis were similar in STEMI and NSTEMI SCAD patients. • In spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD), patients presenting with STEMI showed a worse angiographic profile compared to NSTEMI. • SCAD STEMI patients were more frequently treated with PCI, had larger infarcts with more left ventricular systolic dysfunction. • In-hospital reinfarction and cardiogenic shock were more frequently seen in the STEMI SCAD group. • Long-term prognosis after SCAD did not differ between STEMI and NSTEMI SCAD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We sought to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients treated with the drug-eluting stent ihtDEStiny BD.Background: The ihtDEStiny BD stent is a metallic sirolimus eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer with both drug and polymer coating the abluminal surface of the stent and balloon.Methods: In this study, the clinical outcomes of a multicenter prospective registry of patients treated with this stent (DEStiny group) were analyzed and compared with those of a control group of patients treated with durable polymer everolimus or zotarolimus eluting stents (CONTROL group) paired by propensity score matching. Primary outcome was the target vessel failure (TVF) at 12 months defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and target vessel revascularization (TVR).Results: A total of 350 patients were included in the DESTtiny group. The control group consisted initially of 1368 patients, but after matching (1:1) 350 patients were selected as CONTROL group. The baseline clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics were quite comparable in both groups. At 12 months follow up the TVF was 6.6% in DEStiny group and 6.3% in CONTROL group (p = 0.8). No differences were observed for any of the individual components of the primary endpoint: cardiac death 1.1% vs. 1.4%, TV-MI 3.4% vs. 3.7% and TVR 2.6% vs. 2.3% respectively.Conclusions: The use of ihtDEStiny stent in real practice is associated with a clinical performance at 12 months follow up that appears to be non-inferior to the most widely used and largely evidence supported durable polymer drug eluting stents. A longer follow up is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]