Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to randomly compare the double-layer Roadsaver stent (RS) (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) with the single-layer Carotid Wallstent (CW) (Boston Scientific, Santa Clara, California) in association with either distal embolic protection with the FilterWire (FW) device (Boston Scientific) or proximal protection with the Mo.Ma Ultra device (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) in patients with lipid-rich carotid plaques., Background: The role of both stent type and brain protection during carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains unsettled., Methods: A total of 104 consecutive patients with carotid artery stenosis were randomized to CAS with FW + RS (group 1, n = 27), FW + CW (group 2, n = 25), Mo.Ma + RS (group 3, n = 27), or Mo.Ma + CW (group 4, n = 25). The primary endpoint was the number of microembolic signals (MES) on transcranial Doppler among groups in the following CAS steps: 1 and 2) target vessel access; 3) lesion wiring; 4) pre-dilation; 5) stent crossing; 6) stent deployment; 7) stent dilation; and 8) device retrieval and deflation., Results: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found among the 4 groups. Compared with the FW device, the Mo.Ma Ultra device significantly reduced mean MES count (p < 0.0001) during lesion crossing, stent crossing, stent deployment, and post-dilation. Compared with the CW, the RS significantly reduced MES count (p = 0.016) in steps 6 to 8, including spontaneous MES (29% of patients). The combination of Mo.Ma + RS performed significantly better than Mo.Ma + CW (p = 0.043). Clinical major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in 3 patients (p = 0.51). After CAS, peak systolic velocity significantly decreased in all patients. In-stent restenosis developed in 1 patient (0.98%) at 6-month follow-up. The RS was an independent predictor of external carotid artery patency over time., Conclusions: In patients with high-risk, lipid-rich plaque undergoing CAS, Mo.Ma + RS led to the lowest microembolic signals count. (Role of the Type of Carotid Stent and Cerebral Protection on Cerebral Microembolization During Carotid Artery Stenting. A Randomized Study Comparing Carotid Wallstent vs Roadsaver® Stent and Distal vs Proximal Protection; NCT02915328)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Everolimus-eluting stents are largely used for left main (LM) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Long-term follow-up of patients who underwent LM PCI in a real world clinical setting, in particular women, have been scarcely reported. Consecutive patients who underwent unprotected LM PCI with EES at a single Institution from December 2006 to April 2016 were included. Main outcome assessed was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as a composite of death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularization at follow-up. Overall, 589 patients (20.8% women) were included in the present analysis. Women were older, had lower body mass index and more frequently hypertensive compared with men. Main clinical presentation was stable coronary artery disease (CAD); unstable angina was more frequently observed in women compared with men, whereas ST-elevation myocardial infarction was less frequent. After 69.7 ± 28.3 months of follow-up, 47 patients overall experienced MACE (1.43 per 100*patients/year). MACE rate was higher in women compared with male patients, with a rate of 2.49 and 1.17 per 100*patients/year, respectively (p = 0.015). The difference was driven mainly by higher mortality in women (0.89 vs 0.15 per 100*patients/years, p = 0.002). At multivariable Cox regression, female gender was independently associated with an increased risk of MACE at follow-up (hazard ratio 2.21, 95% confidence interval 1.20 to 4.08, p = 0.011). In conclusion, EES can be safely and effectively adopted for LM PCI., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The safety and effectiveness of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) have been previously demonstrated., Aims: To assess very long-term performance and outcomes of the EES in a real-world population., Methods: This single-center registry prospectively enrolled 6893 patients (mean age, 66 ± 9.7 years; 81.4% men) undergoing elective coronary intervention with the EES over a decade. Clinical follow-up (FU) was performed at 1 year and then yearly thereafter., Results: Multiple risk factors were present in 34%. Stable angina was the main stenting indication (78.1%), followed by unstable angina (5.3%) and positive stress test (16.6%) for 1-vessel (44%) or 2/3-vessel disease (56%). Multiple stents (stent/patient ratio: 2.1 ± 0.8) in >1 vessel were implanted in 36.9% (mean stent length, 43 ± 31.3 mm). At 1 year, 80% of patients were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, while only 3% were on therapy at 2 years. A low 1-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate of 5.0% was observed; stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in 19 patients (0.3%), with a prevalence of early (n = 9) over late (n = 4) and very late events (n = 6; 0.08%). Clinically driven target- lesion revascularization/target-vessel revascularization (TLR/TVR) occurred in 3.3% at 1-year follow-up. Long-term FU (3 years) completed in 6210 patients (90.0%) showed a MACE rate of 5.9%, while very long-term FU (>5 years and up to 10 years), available in 3550 out of 4635 exposed patients (76.6%), showed a MACE rate of 8.6%. Independent MACE predictors were stented segment length (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-2.82), small vessel stenting (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.68), and multivessel disease (2-vessel disease: OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.21-2.08; 3-vessel disease: OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.72-2.97)., Conclusions: This large, prospective registry confirms the very long-term safety and efficacy of the EES in unselected real-world and complex coronary lesions.