Search

Background: The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting (PES) stent implantation in coronary bifurcations treated with either a 1-stent or 2-stent strategy., Methods: The study used a retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive de novo bifurcations, excluding left main, treated with SES or PES between April 2003 and June 2005., Results: We identified 170 bifurcations in 161 patients treated with SES and 119 bifurcations in 112 patients treated with PES. During a median follow-up of 1,061 days (interquartile range 814-1,314), 43 patients (26.7%) in the SES group and 28 (25.0%) in the PES group had a major adverse cardiac event (P = .78). The angiographic restenosis rate per bifurcation was 20.9% and 25.9%, respectively (P = .41). There was no difference overall in the occurrence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) per bifurcation, 22 with SES (12.9%) and 18 with PES (15.1%), P = .61. The TLR rate was similar for SES and PES in bifurcations treated with 1 stent (6.7% vs 11.4%, P = .40) and in bifurcations treated with both branch stenting (20.0% vs 20.4%, P =1.0)., Conclusions: In this cohort, the long-term clinical outcomes appear similar overall between SES and PES in the treatment of coronary bifurcations irrespective of whether a 1-stent or 2-stent strategy was used.

Objectives: This study was designed to compare the outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in a contemporaneous cohort of real-world patients., Background: A number of randomized comparisons of PES and SES have shown unequivocal advantages for SES in angiographic end points such as late loss. However, the data on clinical outcomes are less consistent., Methods: All consecutive patients successfully treated with only SES or PES in de novo native vessel lesions between March 2003 and March 2005 were analyzed. Our end points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). We also analyzed late loss and angiographic restenosis., Results: There were 609 patients (1,064 lesions) treated with PES and 674 patients (1,205 lesions) treated with SES. Diabetes mellitus was present in 26.8% of patients and multivessel disease in 75% of patients. Bifurcations made up 16.3% of lesions, chronic occlusions 9.5%, left main 4.8%, and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology type B2/C 75.4%. Despite a higher late loss in the PES group (p = 0.0001), there were no differences in angiographic restenosis (PES 18% vs. SES 17.8%, p = 0.95), TLR (PES 11.9% vs. SES 11%, p = 0.47), or MACE (PES 21.3% vs. SES 21.1%, p = 0.95). The relative risk of MACE for the PES group was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 1.33). Multivariable analysis confirmed the lack of association of stent type with MACE (odds ratio 1.03 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.38], p = 0.83) and TLR (odds ratio 1.08 [95% CI 0.81 to 1.44], p = 0.61)., Conclusions: In this complex cohort, both stent platforms demonstrated similar clinical outcomes despite different late loss.

Late loss is becoming an important end point to compare drug-eluting stents; however, little is known about its pattern of distribution. We analyzed the pattern of late loss distribution in sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in a consecutive cohort of patients. From a cohort of 529 patients treated with drug-eluting stents in 1 year, we selected all patients who underwent angiographic follow-up. Three hundred fifty-nine patients with 592 de novo lesions received SESs (286 lesions) or PESs (306 lesions). Late loss and binary angiographic restenosis were analyzed. Binary restenosis occurred in 56 lesions (19.6%) treated with SESs compared with 53 (17.3%) treated with PESs (p = 0.48). The 2 late loss distributions were skewed to the right and were not normally distributed (p <0.001 for SES, p = 0.003 for PES). Late loss was significantly lower in the SES group (p = 0.03), with a median value of 0.29 mm (interquartile range -0.09 to 0.66) versus 0.41 mm (-0.02 to 0.85) in the PES group. When analyzing only restenotic lesions, late loss had a normal distribution in the SES and PES groups (p = 0.96 and 0.44, respectively) and was similar in the 2 groups (1.75 +/- 0.51 vs 1.82 +/- 0.62, p = 0.48). When evaluating nonrestenotic lesions, late loss was also normally distributed in the 2 groups (p = 0.75 for SES, p = 0.73 for PES) but was significantly lower (p = 0.002) after SES implantation (0.14 +/- 0.39) than after PES implantation (0.27 +/- 0.44). In conclusion, SESs and PESs have a bimodal pattern of late loss distribution. The observed difference in late loss between SES and PES seems to be partly explained by the decrease in late loss after SES implantation in nonrestenotic lesions (where SES approaches "zero late loss"). Thus, late loss may not be a reliable marker of the true efficacy of these devices due to its complex and nongaussian distribution.

Background: Currently, little data are available on the management of drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis. Drug resistance may play a role in its etiology., Methods: We identified all cases of either sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stent restenosis treated with repeated DES implantation. The lesions were divided into those receiving the same DES as the one that restenosed and those treated with the alternative DES. The end points analyzed were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and angiographic restenosis., Results: We included 201 lesions (174 patients); the same DES was implanted in 107 lesions and a different DES in 94 lesions. Angiographic follow-up of the retreatment was available in 69.7% of the lesions. Angiographic restenosis occurred in 26.4% (19) of cases treated with the same DES and 25.8% (17) of those treated with a different DES (P = 1.0). Target lesion revascularization occurred in 15.9% (17) and 16% (15) of lesions, respectively (P = 1.0). A multivariate analysis confirmed the lack of association between the treatment selected and TLR (OR 0.7, 95% CIs [0.29-1.67]; P = .42). A nonfocal pattern of restenosis remained associated with TLR and restenosis (OR 2.99, 95% CIs [1.24-7.24]; P = .015 and OR 3.6, 95% CIs [1.5-8.8]; P = .004, respectively)., Conclusions: Repeated DES implantation for DES restenosis is feasible and safe. The TLR rate is acceptable, with no differences between implantation of the same or a different DES. The pattern of restenosis treated is an important predictor of outcomes.

Aim: To evaluate patterns of restenosis following implantation of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in comparable unselected lesions., Methods and Results: We have identified all episodes of restenosis after SES or PES implantation in our institutions between March 2003 and March 2005. Restenosis pattern was classified as focal, diffuse, proliferative, or occlusive. The position of focal restenosis was also categorized as proximal, in-stent, distal, or multi-focal. We have characterized 150 and 149 restenotic lesions in SES and PES groups, respectively. The incidence of diffuse and occlusive restenosis was significantly higher in PES than in SES (47.6 vs. 27.0%, P < 0.001). Multivariable (OR 2.693, 95% CI 1.425-5.089, P = 0.002) and propensity (OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.584-5.672, P < 0.001) analyses confirmed the positive association of PES with non-focal restenosis. For both stents, focal-edge restenosis was significantly more likely to occur proximally than distally (61.0 vs. 16.9%, P < 0.001 for PES and 45.8 vs. 16.8%, P < 0.001 for SES)., Conclusion: Focal restenosis remains the most common pattern with SES. In contrast, just under half of restenosis in PES is the more severe non-focal pattern. Paradoxically, the majority of focal restenosis occurs at the proximal stent margin for both platforms.

Drug-eluting stents have been unequivocally demonstrated to reduce in-stent restenosis when compared to bare metal stents, with resultant lower rates of repeat revascularization. Comparative data are now emerging which compare the performance of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents to each other rather than to bare metal stents. In this article, we review these data with the aim of placing the studies in context thereby providing an overall view of this rapidly developing field as it stands at present.

The article presents a case study of 62-year-old man suffering from coronary artery rupture caused by stent infection. The patient had a history of hypertension and myocardial infarction, and had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention with a paclitaxel-eluting stent to the left anterior descending coronary artery. The patient complained of chest pain and ST-segment elevation, and coronary angiography confirmed rupture of the left anterior descending artery aneurysm.