Search

Objectives: Aorto-ostial lesions (AOL) are technically challenging, given their greater propensity to be calcific and associated with elastic recoil compared to non-ostial lesions. This study set out to assess angiographic and clinical outcomes in patients with AOL treated using either paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) compared to bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation. Methods: We retrospectively identified 175 consecutive patients with 175 AOL involving the left main, right coronary artery or bypass graft. PES, SES and BMS were implanted in 69, 50 and 56 patients, respectively. Results: Angiographic and procedural success was 100 and 97.1% for PES, 100 and 94% for SES, and 100 and 94.6% for BMS, respectively (p not significant). At 12 months, the rates of target lesion (8.7% for PES, 4.0% for SES) and target vessel revascularization (3.0% for PES, 8.0% for SES) were significantly lower in the drug-eluting stent group compared to BMS (32.1 and 35.7%, respectively). There was no difference in the rate of death/MI in the BMS versus drug-eluting stent groups (5.4 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.32). Conclusions: In the treatment of AOL, drug-eluting stents reduce the need for repeat revascularization at 12 month follow-up compared to BMS, with no difference in mortality or MI rate. Copyright © 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ostial saphenous vein graft (OSVG) lesions were excluded from all the clinical trials demonstrating significantly lower restenosis rates with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DES in OSVG lesions by assessing angiographic and 12-month clinical outcomes. Methods: 70 consecutive patients (70 OSVG lesions) underwent coronary stent implantation between May 2003 and April 2006: 37 lesions received DES and 33 lesions BMS. Endpoints were all cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), examined separately and as a combined end-point (major adverse cardiac events, MACE). Results: Procedural (94.6% for DES and 87.9% for BMS) and angiographic (100% for DES and 100% for BMS) success did not differ between the two groups. The only in-hospital events were non-Q wave MI (DES 8.1% versus BMS 12.1%, P=0.69). At 30-day follow-up, there were no other events. Overall, at 1-year follow-up, the BMS group had a higher TLR (30.3% versus 5.4%, P=0.015), TVR (33.3% versus 10.8%, P=0.045) and MACE rate (36.4% versus 10.8%, P=0.024) compared to the DES group. Conclusions: Drug-eluting stent implantation to OSVG lesions achieves better clinical results than BMS but is still associated with a relatively high incidence (10.8%) of revascularization at 1-year follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Percutaneous coronary intervention has moved forward with great speed since the advent of stents and now more recently the introduction of drug-eluting technologies. This has seen the modern interventional cardiologist tackle more and more complex coronary lesions, of which unprotected left main (ULM) and bifurcations still remain challenging and controversial. ULM coronary artery stenosis traditionally remains a surgical indication although there have been recent reports and studies demonstrating the feasibility of a percutaneous strategy in select patient groups. Furthermore, drug-eluting stents have shown great benefit in reducing the problem of restenosis and have also become the mainstay treatment modality for bifurcation lesions with a choice between one- or two-stent strategies determined by the extent of disease burden in the main vessel and side branch and the response of the side branch ostium following treatment of the main vessel. This article will provide a contemporary review of percutaneous intervention for these two lesion subsets and describe the relative merits of each of the different strategies in current use with a glimpse into what the future may hold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]