Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Comparison of Bare-Metal and Sirolimus- or Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Aorto-Ostial Coronary Disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization.

          Sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, reduce the risk of restenosis. It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between the two types of drug-eluting stents. We conducted a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 1012 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization of the target lesion) by nine months. Follow-up angiography was completed in 540 of 1012 patients (53.4 percent). The two groups had similar baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. The rate of major adverse cardiac events at nine months was 6.2 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 10.8 percent in the paclitaxel-stent group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.86; P=0.009). The difference was driven by a lower rate of target-lesion revascularization in the sirolimus-stent group than in the paclitaxel-stent group (4.8 percent vs. 8.3 percent; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.93; P=0.03). Rates of death from cardiac causes were 0.6 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 1.6 percent in the paclitaxel-stent group (P=0.15); the rates of myocardial infarction were 2.8 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively (P=0.49); and the rates of angiographic restenosis were 6.6 percent and 11.7 percent, respectively (P=0.02). As compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents results in fewer major adverse cardiac events, primarily by decreasing the rates of clinical and angiographic restenosis. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            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. To compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. 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. Ninety hospitals in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. 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. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 701) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 685). 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. 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). 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. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00235092.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical, angiographic, and procedural predictors of angiographic restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in complex patients: an evaluation from the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) study.

              The factors associated with the occurrence of restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in complex cases are currently unknown. A cohort of consecutive complex patients treated with SES implantation was selected according to the following criteria: (1) treatment of acute myocardial infarction, (2) treatment of in-stent restenosis, (3) 2.25-mm diameter SES, (4) left main coronary stenting, (5) chronic total occlusion, (6) stented segment >36 mm, and (7) bifurcation stenting. The present study population was composed of 238 patients (441 lesions) for whom 6-month angiographic follow-up data were obtained (70% of eligible patients). Significant clinical, angiographic, and procedural predictors of post-SES restenosis were evaluated. Binary in-segment restenosis was diagnosed in 7.9% of lesions (6.3% in-stent, 0.9% at the proximal edge, 0.7% at the distal edge). The following characteristics were identified as independent multivariate predictors: treatment of in-stent restenosis (OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.63 to 11.01; P<0.01), ostial location (OR 4.84, 95% CI 1.81 to 12.07; P<0.01), diabetes (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.14 to 6.31; P=0.02), total stented length (per 10-mm increase; OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.68; P<0.01), reference diameter (per 1.0-mm increase; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.87; P=0.03), and left anterior descending artery (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.69; P<0.01). Angiographic restenosis after SES implantation in complex patients is an infrequent event, occurring mainly in association with lesion-based characteristics and diabetes mellitus.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CRD
                Cardiology
                10.1159/issn.0008-6312
                Cardiology
                S. Karger AG
                0008-6312
                1421-9751
                2008
                October 2008
                02 May 2008
                : 111
                : 4
                : 270-276
                Affiliations
                Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK
                Article
                128602 Cardiology 2008;111:270–276
                10.1159/000128602
                18451644
                © 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, References: 14, Pages: 7
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article