Feasibility and effectiveness of using coronary stents in the treatment of hepatic artery stenoses after orthotopic liver transplantation: preliminary report.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and patency of using coronary stents for the treatment of hepatic artery stenosis after liver transplantation. CONCLUSION: Hepatic artery stenosis after liver transplantation can be treated using coronary stents. The low rate of complication, high technical success, and 1-year patency rates are encouraging.

A comparison of the conformability of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds to metal platform coronary stents

The aim of this study was to assess the differences in terms of curvature and angulation of the treated vessel after the deployment of either a metallic stent or a polymeric scaffold device.

A randomised comparison of novolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents: 9-month follow-up results of the EXCELLA II study

Novolimus, a macrocyclic lactone with anti-proliferative properties, has a similar efficacy to currently available agents; however it requires a lower dose, and less polymer, and is therefore conceivably safer.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents

New-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration.

Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol-mandated angiographic follow-up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug-eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients.

Unrestricted randomised use of two new generation drug-eluting coronary stents: 2-year patient-related versus stent-related outcomes from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial

In the RESOLUTE All Comers trial, the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the Xience V everolimus-eluting stent for the primary stent-related endpoint of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation) at 1 year. However, data for long-term safety and efficacy from randomised studies of new generation drug-eluting coronary stents in patients treated in routine clinical practice are scarce. We report the prespecified 2-year clinical outcomes from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial.

Sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in small vessels

BACKGROUND: This prospective multicenter study compared angiographic in-lesion late lumen loss in de novo native coronary artery lesions (vessel diameter range 2.25-2.75 mm, length range > or = 15 to < or = 30 mm) 8 months after the implantation of a sirolimus-eluting stent with that of similar vessels with the same drug-eluting stent or a bare stent of the SIRIUS study (historical controls). METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred one patients (study group) were matched and compared with 323 patients receiving the bare stent (bare control group) and with 350 receiving the Cypher stent (Cypher control group) in the SIRIUS trial. Mean in-lesion late loss in the study group was lower than that in the bare control group (0.20 versus 0.76 mm, P < .0001) and not inferior to that in the Cypher control group (0.27 mm, P = .3). Adverse event rates (death and myocardial infarction) were similar between groups. At 8 months, target lesion revascularization rates were 0% in the study group, 13.2% in the bare control group (P < .001), and 4.6% in the Cypher control group (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The Cypher Bx Velocity stent was confirmed to be superior to the bare Bx Velocity stent in small coronary vessels in terms of in-lesion late loss 8 months after implantation.

Report of a European Society of Cardiology-European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions task force on the evaluation of coronary stents in Europe: executive summary.

The evaluation for European Union market approval of coronary stents falls under the Medical Device Directive that was adopted in 1993. Specific requirements for the assessment of coronary stents are laid out in supplementary advisory documents. In response to a call by the European Commission to make recommendations for a revision of the advisory document on the evaluation of coronary stents (Appendix 1 of MEDDEV 2.7.1), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) established a Task Force to develop an expert advisory report. As basis for its report, the ESC-EAPCI Task Force reviewed existing processes, established a comprehensive list of all coronary drug-eluting stents that have received a CE mark to date, and undertook a systematic review of the literature of all published randomized clinical trials evaluating clinical and angiographic outcomes of coronary artery stents between 2002 and 2013. Based on these data, the TF provided recommendations to inform a new regulatory process for coronary stents. The main recommendations of the task force include implementation of a standardized non-clinical assessment of stents and a novel clinical evaluation pathway for market approval. The two-stage clinical evaluation plan includes recommendation for an initial pre-market trial with objective performance criteria (OPC) benchmarking using invasive imaging follow-up leading to conditional CE-mark approval and a subsequent mandatory, large-scale randomized trial with clinical endpoint evaluation leading to unconditional CE-mark. The data analysis from the systematic review of the Task Force may provide a basis for determination of OPC for use in future studies. This paper represents an executive summary of the Task Force's report.

Causes of late mortality with dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stents.

AIMS In the dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) study, continued thienopyridine beyond 12 months after drug-eluting stent placement was associated with increased mortality compared with placebo. We sought to evaluate factors related to mortality in randomized patients receiving either drug-eluting or bare metal stents in the DAPT study. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients were enrolled after coronary stenting, given thienopyridine and aspirin for 12 months, randomly assigned to continued thienopyridine or placebo for an additional 18 months (while taking aspirin), and subsequently treated with aspirin alone for another 3 months. A blinded independent adjudication committee evaluated deaths. Among 11 648 randomized patients, rates of all-cause mortality rates were 1.9 vs. 1.5% (continued thienopyridine vs. placebo, P = 0.07), cardiovascular mortality, 1.0 vs. 1.0% (P = 0.97), and non-cardiovascular mortality, 0.9 vs. 0.5% (P = 0.01) over the randomized period (Months 12-30). Rates of fatal bleeding were 0.2 vs. 0.1% (P = 0.81), and deaths related to any prior bleeding were 0.3 vs. 0.2% (P = 0.36), Months 12-33). Cancer incidence did not differ (2.0 vs. 1.6%, P = 0.12). Cancer-related deaths occurred in 0.6 vs. 0.3% (P = 0.02) and were rarely related to bleeding (0.1 vs. 0, P = 0.25). After excluding those occurring in patients with cancer diagnosed before enrolment, rates were 0.4 vs. 0.3% (P = 0.16). CONCLUSION Bleeding accounted for a minority of deaths among patients treated with continued thienopyridine. Cancer-related death in association with thienopyridine therapy was mainly not related to bleeding and may be a chance finding. Caution is warranted when considering extended thienopyridine in patients with advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00977938.

Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial

BACKGROUND Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to be superior to the first-generation drug-eluting stents. However, data comparing long-term safety and efficacy of zotarolimus- (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are limited. RESOLUTE all-comers (Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial compared these 2 stents and has shown that ZES was noninferior to EES at 12-month for the primary end point of target lesion failure. We report the secondary clinical outcomes at the final 5-year follow-up of this trial. METHODS AND RESULTS RESOLUTE all-comer clinical study is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria. Patients (n=2292) were randomly assigned to treatment with either ZES (n=1140) or EES (n=1152). Patient-oriented composite end point (combination of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any revascularizations), device-oriented composite end point (combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (combination of all-cause death, all myocardial infarction, emergent coronary bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) were analyzed at 5-year follow-up. The 2 groups were well-matched at baseline. Five-year follow-up data were available for 98% patients. There were no differences in patient-oriented composite end point (ZES 35.3% versus EES 32.0%, P=0.11), device-oriented composite end point (ZES 17.0% versus EES 16.2%, P=0.61), major adverse cardiac events (ZES 21.9% versus EES 21.6%, P=0.88), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ZES 2.8% versus EES 1.8%, P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS At 5-year follow-up, ZES and EES had similar efficacy and safety in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00617084.

Antiplatelet therapy duration following bare metal or drug-eluting coronary stents: the dual antiplatelet therapy randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stents (BMS), the relative risk of stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular events is unclear. Although dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year provides ischemic event protection after DES, ischemic event risk is perceived to be less after BMS, and the appropriate duration of DAPT after BMS is unknown. OBJECTIVE To compare (1) rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) after 30 vs 12 months of thienopyridine in patients treated with BMS taking aspirin and (2) treatment duration effect within the combined cohorts of randomized patients treated with DES or BMS as prespecified secondary analyses. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS International, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing extended (30-months) thienopyridine vs placebo in patients taking aspirin who completed 12 months of DAPT without bleeding or ischemic events after receiving stents. The study was initiated in August 2009 with the last follow-up visit in May 2014. INTERVENTIONS Continued thienopyridine or placebo at months 12 through 30 after stent placement, in 11,648 randomized patients treated with aspirin, of whom 1687 received BMS and 9961 DES. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Stent thrombosis, MACCE, and moderate or severe bleeding. RESULTS Among 1687 patients treated with BMS who were randomized to continued thienopyridine vs placebo, rates of stent thrombosis were 0.5% vs 1.11% (n = 4 vs 9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.64; P = .24), rates of MACCE were 4.04% vs 4.69% (n = 33 vs 38; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57-1.47; P = .72), and rates of moderate/severe bleeding were 2.03% vs 0.90% (n = 16 vs 7; P = .07), respectively. Among all 11,648 randomized patients (both BMS and DES), stent thrombosis rates were 0.41% vs 1.32% (n = 23 vs 74; HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.50; P < .001), rates of MACCE were 4.29% vs 5.74% (n = 244 vs 323; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87; P < .001), and rates of moderate/severe bleeding were 2.45% vs 1.47% (n = 135 vs 80; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients undergoing coronary stent placement with BMS and who tolerated 12 months of thienopyridine, continuing thienopyridine for an additional 18 months compared with placebo did not result in statistically significant differences in rates of stent thrombosis, MACCE, or moderate or severe bleeding. However, the BMS subset may have been underpowered to identify such differences, and further trials are suggested. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00977938.

Percutaneous handling of coronary lesions >20mm through stents. Is there a first choice strategy?

OBJECTIVE - This study compared the early and late results of the use of one single stent with those of the use of multiple stents in patients with lesions longer than 20mm. METHODS - Prospective assessment of patients electively treated with stents, with optimal stent deployment and followed-up for more than 3 months. From February '94 to January '98, 215 patients with lesions >20mm were treated. These patients were divided into 2 groups as follows: Group A - 105 patients (49%) with one stent implanted; Group B - 110 patients (51%) with multiple stents implanted. RESULTS - The mean length of the lesions was 26mm in group A (21-48mm) versus 29mm in group B (21-52mm) (p=0.01). Major complications occurred in one patient (0.9%) in group A (subacute thrombosis, myocardial infarctionand death) and in 2 patients (1.8%) in group B (one emergency surgery and one myocardial infarction) (p=NS). The results of the late follow-up period (>6 months) were similar for both groups (group A = 82% vs group B = 76%; p=NS), and we observed an event-free survical in 89% of the patients in group A and in 91% of the patients in group B (p=NS). Angina (group A = 11% vs group B = 7%) and lesion revascularization (group A = 5% vs group B = 6%; p=NS) also occurred in a similar percentage. No infarction or death was observed in the late follow-up period; restenosis was identified in 33% and 29% of the patients in groups A and B, respectively (p=NS). CONCLUSION - The results obtained using one stent and using multiple stents were similar; the greater cost-effectiveness of one stent implantation, however, seems to make this strategy the first choice.

Predictors of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention using bare-metal stents: a comparison between patients with and without dysglycemia

The objective of this study was to identify intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), angiographic and metabolic parameters related to restenosis in patients with dysglycemia. Seventy consecutive patients (77 lesions) selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria were evaluated by the oral glucose tolerance test and the determination of insulinemia after a successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a bare-metal stent. The degree of insulin resistance was calculated by the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Six-month IVUS and angiogram follow-up were performed. Thirty-nine patients (55.7%) had dysglycemia. The restenosis rate in the dysglycemic group was 37.2 vs 23.5% in the euglycemic group (P = 0.299). The predictors of restenosis using bivariate analysis were reference vessel diameter (RVD): £2.93 mm (RR = 0.54; 95%CI = 0.05-0.78; P = 0.048), stent area (SA): <8.91 mm² (RR = 0.66; 95%CI = 0.24-0.85; P = 0.006), stent volume (SV): <119.75 mm³ (RR = 0.74; 95%CI = 0.38-0.89; P = 0.0005), HOMA-IR: >2.063 (RR = 0.44; 95%CI = 0.14-0.64; P = 0.027), and fasting plasma glucose (FPG): ≤108.8 mg/dL (RR = 0.53; 95%CI = 0.13-0.75; P = 0.046). SV was an independent predictor of restenosis by multivariable analysis. Dysglycemia is a common clinical condition in patients submitted to PCI. The degree of insulin resistance, FPG, RVD, SA, and SV were correlated with restenosis. SV was inversely correlated with an independent predictor of restenosis in patients treated with a bare-metal stent.

Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT: Compared with bare metal stents, sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents have been shown to markedly improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary revascularization, but their performance in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions has not been compared in a prospective multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized comparative trial (the REALITY trial) conducted between August 2003 and February 2004, with angiographic follow-up at 8 months and clinical follow-up at 12 months. SETTING: Ninety hospitals in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. PATIENTS: A total of 1386 patients (mean age, 62.6 years; 73.1% men; 28.0% with diabetes) with angina pectoris and 1 or 2 de novo lesions (2.25-3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteries. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 701) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 685). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was in-lesion binary restenosis (presence of a more than 50% luminal-diameter stenosis) at 8 months. Secondary end points included 1-year rates of target lesion and vessel revascularization and a composite end point of cardiac death, Q-wave or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or repeat target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: In-lesion binary restenosis at 8 months occurred in 86 patients (9.6%) with a sirolimus-eluting stent vs 95 (11.1%) with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.17; P = .31). For sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents, respectively, the mean (SD) in-stent late loss was 0.09 (0.43) mm vs 0.31 (0.44) mm (difference, -0.22 mm; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.18 mm; P<.001), mean (SD) in-stent diameter stenosis was 23.1% (16.6%) vs 26.7% (15.8%) (difference, -3.60%; 95% CI, -5.12% to -2.08%; P<.001), and the number of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year was 73 (10.7%) vs 76 (11.4%) (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; P = .73). CONCLUSION: In this trial comparing sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents, there were no differences in the rates of binary restenosis or major adverse cardiac events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00235092.