Impact of drug-eluting stent selection on long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the sirolimus vs paclitaxel drug-eluting stent for left main registry (SP-DELFT)

AIM: To compare the long-term relative efficacy and safety of SES and PES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease and to evaluate the role of lesion location and stenting technique in determining outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2002 to April 2004, 288 consecutive patients who underwent elective PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA have been retrospectively selected and analyzed in seven European and US tertiary care centers. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. SES was used in 152 patients while 136 received PES. Isolated ostial-shaft disease was present in 27% of patients. Distal LM disease (73%) was treated with single and double stent approach in 29.5% and 43.4% of patients respectively. After 3 years, rates of survival free from any of the events investigated, were independent from lesion location and stenting approach and did not differ significantly between SES and PES groups. Freedom from MACE (SES vs. PES) was 76.3% vs. 83.1% in the ostial/shaft group, 80.3% vs. 72.8% in the distal-single stent group and 67.1% vs. 66.2% in the distal-double stent group. Definite stent thrombosis occurred only in 1(0.3%) patient at 439 days. CONCLUSIONS: In elective patients who underwent PCI for de novo lesions in the ostium, shaft or distal ULMCA, long-term clinical outcomes with SES and PES use were similar independently of lesion location and stenting technique.

Longest available clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the DELFT (Drug Eluting stent for LeFT main) Registry

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical outcomes after DES implantation for ULMCA disease have not yet been ascertained. METHODS: From April 2002 to April 2004, 358 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA were retrospectively selected and analyzed in 7 European and U.S. tertiary care centers. No patients were excluded from the analysis, and all patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. RESULTS: Technical success rate was 100%. Procedural success rate was 89.6%. After 3 years, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival in the whole population was 73.5%. According to the Academic Research Consortium definitions, cardiac death occurred in 9.2% of patients, and reinfarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) occurred in 8.6%, 5.8%, and 14.2% of patients, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (specifically at 0 and 439 days). In elective patients, the 3-year MACE-free survival was 74.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 6.2%, 8.3%, 6.6%, and 16%, respectively. In the emergent group the 3-year MACE-free survival was 68.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 21.4%, 10%, 2.8%, and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Routine DES implantation in ULMCA disease seems encouraging, with favorable long-term clinical results.

Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND: Whether bivalirudin is superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with stable or unstable angina who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after pretreatment with clopidogrel is unknown. METHODS: We enrolled 4570 patients with stable or unstable angina (with normal levels of troponin T and creatine kinase MB) who were undergoing PCI after pretreatment with a 600-mg dose of clopidogrel at least 2 hours before the procedure; 2289 patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive bivalirudin, and 2281 to receive unfractionated heparin. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target-vessel revascularization due to myocardial ischemia within 30 days after randomization, or major bleeding during the index hospitalization (with a net clinical benefit defined as a reduction in the incidence of the end point). The secondary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularization. RESULTS: The incidence of the primary end point was 8.3% (190 patients) in the bivalirudin group as compared with 8.7% (199 patients) in the unfractionated-heparin group (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.15; P=0.57). The secondary end point occurred in 134 patients (5.9%) in the bivalirudin group and 115 patients (5.0%) in the unfractionated-heparin group (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.49; P=0.23). The incidence of major bleeding was 3.1% (70 patients) in the bivalirudin group and 4.6% (104 patients) in the unfractionated-heparin group (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.90; P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable and unstable angina who underwent PCI after pretreatment with clopidogrel, bivalirudin did not provide a net clinical benefit (i.e., it did not reduce the incidence of the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target-vessel revascularization, or major bleeding) as compared with unfractionated heparin, but it did significantly reduce the incidence of major bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262054.)

Rotational atherectomy followed by drug-eluting stent implantation (Rota-DES): a rational approach for complex calcified coronary lesions

Rotational atherectomy has been regaining interest over the last couple of years after it almost has disappeared from most interventional catheterization laboratories for several years due to failure to prove its original concept of improving long term results of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) as was repeatedly shown in studies in the 1990s. Its revival coupled the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES); these devices have led to treating much more complex lesions and high-risk patients by PCI. However, real-world experience suggested that off-label use of DES is associated with a higher rate of early and late stent thrombosis. Therefore, more attention is now being paid to the initial implantation technique of DES including aggressive lesion preparation to facilitate stent delivery and expansion. The limited studies with rot-ablation and DES showed promising results with no long term safety concerns. In these studies, a subtle observation was made suggesting that rot-ablation prior to DES implantation in such lesions may have an add-on effect on long term outcome compared to DES alone. An ongoing multicenter study is investigating such effect among complex calcified coronary lesions. Even if this additive benefit does not prove true, rot-ablation remains an efficient tool for preparing certain lesions to facilitate effective and safe DES implantation. Therefore, interventional training programs should focus on this difficult technique to bridge the gap of experience which resulted from neglecting it for several years. In this regard, dedicated courses at experienced sites as well as medical simulation may be appropriate.

Diazepam versus fentanyl for premedication during percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the Myocardial Protection by Fentanyl during Coronary Intervention (PROFIT) Trial

BACKGROUND: Sedation is a cornerstone in the premedication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Benzodiazepines and opioids are frequently used. Previous results suggest that opioids mimic the adaptation to ischemia during repeated balloon inflations and may provide direct myocardial protection in addition to their sedative effect. However, no comparative data exist. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind trial comparing diazepam and fentanyl in 276 patients undergoing elective PCI. Patients were randomized to either diazepam 5 mg sublingually or fentanyl 0.05 mg or 0.1 mg intravenously at least 5 minutes prior to the first balloon inflation. The primary end-point was the postprocedural elevation of myocardial markers of necrosis defined as an elevation of cardiac troponin T > or = 0.01 ng/ml. RESULTS: The three groups had similar baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics, with no significant differences in lesion morphology, procedural complexity, or adjunctive medical treatment. No significant variation in the hemodynamic response to the study drugs was observed in the three groups. The rate of postprocedural troponin T elevation was 28% in the diazepam group, 20% in the fentanyl 0.05 mg group, and 30% in the fentanyl 0.1 mg group (P = 0.26). Rates of postprocedural myocardial infarction were 3%, 2%, and 2%, respectively (P = 0.84), with one case of in-hospital death in the diazepam group and no urgent TVR in the whole study population. CONCLUSION: Although providing a well-tolerated alternative to diazepam for sedation during PCI, fentanyl did not provide additional cardioprotection assessed through the postinterventional elevation of cardiac troponin T during elective coronary intervention.

Multi-vessel stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. A single-center experience

BACKGROUND: Recanalization of the culprit lesion is the main goal of primary angioplasty for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease are, therefore, usually subjected to staged procedures, with the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) confined to recanalization of the infarct-related artery (IRA). Theoretically at least, early relief of stenoses of non-infarct-related arteries could promote collateral circulation, which could help to limit the infarct size. However, the safety and feasibility of such an approach has not been adequately established. METHODS: In this single-center prospective study we examined 73 consecutive patients who had an acute STEMI and at least one or more lesions > or = 70% in a major epicardial vessel other than the infarct-related artery. In the first 28 patients, forming the multi-vessel (MV) PCI group, all lesions were treated during the primary procedure. In the following 45 patients, forming the culprit-only (CO) PCI group, only the culprit lesion was treated during the initial procedure, followed by either planned-staged or ischemia-driven revascularization of the non-culprit lesions. Fluoroscopy time and contrast dye amount were compared between both groups, and patients were followed up for one year for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and other significant clinical events. RESULTS: The two groups were well balanced in terms of clinical characteristics, number of diseased vessels and angiographic characteristics of the culprit lesion. In the MV-PCI group, 2.51 lesions per patient were treated using 2.96 +/- 1.34 stents (1.00 lesions and 1.76 +/- 1.17 stents in the CO-PCI group, both p < 0.001). The fluoroscopy time increased from 10.3 (7.2-16.9) min in the CO-PCI group to 12.5 (8.5-19.3) min in the MV-PCI group (p = 0.22), and the amount of contrast used from 200 (180-250) ml to 250 (200-300) ml, respectively (p = 0.16). Peak CK and CK-MB were significantly lower in patients of the MV-PCI group (843 +/- 845 and 135 +/- 125 vs 1652 +/- 1550 and 207 +/- 155 U/l, p < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Similar rates of major adverse cardiac events at one year were observed in the two groups (24% and 28% in multi-vessel and culprit treatment groups, p = 0.73). The incidence of new revascularization in both infarct- and non-infarct-related arteries was also similar (24% and 28%, respectively, p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: We may state from this limited experience that a multi-vessel stenting approach for patients with acute STEMI and multi-vessel disease is feasible and probably safe during routine clinical practice. Our data suggest that this approach may help to limit the infarct size. However, larger studies, perhaps using drug-eluting stents, are still needed to further evaluate the safety and efficiency of this procedure, and whether it is associated with a lower need of subsequent revascularization and lower costs.

Diabetic patients treated for unprotected left main coronary artery disease with drug eluting stents: a 3-year clinical outcome study. The diabetes and drug eluting stent for LeFT main registry (D-DELFT)

AIMS: Diabetes mellitus (DM) plays an important role in the development of coronary artery disease. Although previous studies have associated drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in diabetic patients with favourable clinical and angiographic outcomes, the very long-term efficacy of these devices in diabetic patients undergoing PCI for significant unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease has not been established yet. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive diabetic patients (n=100), who underwent elective PCI with DES for de novo lesions in an ULMCA between April 2002 and April 2004 in seven tertiary health care centres, were identified retrospectively and analysed. Consecutive non-diabetic patients (n=193), who underwent elective DES implantation for unprotected ULMCA disease, were selected as a control group. All patients were followed for at least 36 months. At 3-years follow-up, freedom from cardiac death ; myocardial infarction (CDMI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) did not differ significantly between groups. The adjusted freedom from major adverse cardiac events (MACE, defined as the occurrence of CD, MI or TVR) was 63.4% in the DM group and 77.6% in the controls (p<0.001). When divided into IDDM and NIDDM sub-groups, insulin-dependent DM (IDDM) but not non IDDM (NIDDM) patients had significantly lower freedom from CDMI, TLR, TVR and MACE compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that major improvements in DES technology and pharmacotherapy are still required to improve clinical outcome and that the decision to perform percutaneous revascularisation in this subset of patients should be taken cautiously and on a case by case basis.