Impact of overlapping drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

The angiography-guided spot versus entire stenting in patients with long coronary lesions trial: Study design and rationale for a randomized controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

/Purpose: Long-stenting, even with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES), is an independent predictor of restenosis and stent thrombosis in patients with long coronary lesions. Spot-stenting, i.e., selective stenting of only the most severe stenotic segments of a long lesion, may be an alternative to a DES. The purpose of this study is to compare the one-year clinical outcomes of patients with spot versus entire stenting in long coronary lesions using a second-generation DES.

METHOD

This study is a randomized, prospective, multi-center trial comparing long-term clinical outcomes of angiography-guided spot versus entire stenting in patients with long coronary lesions (≥25 mm in length). The primary endpoint is target vessel failure (TVF) at 12 months, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A total of 470 patients are enrolled for this study according to sample size calculations. This study will be conducted to evaluate the non-inferiority of spot stenting compared to entire stenting with zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES).

RESULTS

This study is designed to evaluate the clinical impact of spot-stenting with ZESs for TVF due to possible edge restenosis or non-target lesion revascularization. Theoretically, spot-stenting may decrease the risk of TVR and the extent of endothelial dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

This SPOT trial will provide clinical insight into spot-stenting with a current second-generation DES as a new strategy for long coronary lesions.

Safety and efficacy outcomes of overlapping second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation drug-eluting stents

The safety and efficacy outcomes of stent overlap with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have not been well established. This study aimed to compare the 1-year clinical outcomes of overlapping everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with those of overlapping first-generation DES. This retrospective analysis included 350 patients treated with overlapping EES (169 patients with 237 lesions), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES, 102 patients with 252 lesions), or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES, 79 patients with 182 lesions). End points were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization), target vessel revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis at 1 year. During a follow-up of 1 year, overall MACE occurred in 6.5% of EES-, 16.8% of SES-, and 10.1% of PES-treated patients (p = 0.026). Myocardial infarction was lowest in the EES group versus SES and PES groups (0 vs 1.0% vs 2.5%, respectively; p = 0.080), and mortality was similar (3.6% vs 9.0% vs 5.1%, p = 0.162). The EES patients showed a trend toward lower rates of 1-year target lesion revascularization (3.1% vs 8.2% vs 6.5%, p = 0.181) and target vessel revascularization (3.7% vs 9.1% vs 11.7%, p = 0.051) compared with the SES- and PES-treated patients. The cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was lowest in the EES group (0 for EES vs 3.9% for SES vs 2.5% for PES, p = 0.014). In conclusion, stent overlap with EES versus first-generation DES was associated with lower rates of MACE and stent thrombosis. Our results suggest that the use of EES when deploying overlapping stents is effective and safe.

Two-year clinical outcomes of patients with long segments drug-eluting stents: comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent with paclitaxel-eluting stent

Limited data are available on the long-term clinical efficacy of drug-eluting stent (DES) in diffuse long lesions. From May 2006 to May 2007, a total of 335 consecutive patients (374 lesions) were underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of long DES (≥ 30 mm) in real world practice. Eight-month angiographic outcomes and 2-yr clinical outcomes were compared between SES (n = 218) and PES (n = 117). Study endpoints were major adverse cardiac events including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, target-vessel revascularization and stent thrombosis. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups as were mean stent length (44.9 ± 15.2 mm in SES and 47.4 ± 15.9 in PES, P = 0.121). Late loss at 8 months follow-up was significantly lower in SES than in PES group (0.4 ± 0.6 mm in SES vs 0.7 ± 0.8 mm in PES, P = 0.007). Mean follow-up duration was 849 ± 256 days, and 2-yr cumulative major adverse cardiac events were significantly lower in the SES than in the PES group (5.5% in SES vs 15.4% in PES, P = 0.003). In conclusion, long-term DES use in diffuse long coronary lesions is associated with favorable results, with SES being more effective and safer than PES in this real-world clinical experience.

Outcomes of stenting with overlapping drug-eluting stents versus overlapping drug-eluting and bare-metal stents for the treatment of diffuse coronary lesions

INTRODUCTION

we investigated the outcomes of stenting with overlapping drug-eluting stents (DES) versus overlapping stenting with a combination of drug-eluting and bare metal stents (BMS) in very long coronary lesions (≥ 25 mm).

METHODS AND RESULTS

fifty-two patients treated with either overlapping DES-DES (n = 22) or DES-BMS (n = 30) were selected from a registry of 588 patients with very long coronary lesions. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) within the preceding 48 hours were excluded. The DES-DES combination was more frequently used for longer lesions compared with the DES-BMS group (47.95 ± 9.25 vs 39.98 ± 9.15 mm, p = 0.003). Left anterior descending artery lesions were also more frequently treated with the DES-DES combination (95.5 vs 66.7%, p = 0.02). In four patients in the DES-BMS group, overlapping stents were used for the coverage of dissections. Peri-procedural non-Q-wave MI occurred in one patient in the DES-BMS group. On follow up, only one case of non-fatal MI occurred in a patient with overlapping DES-DES.

CONCLUSION

overlapping a BMS in the proximal part of a long DES instead of exclusive deployment of two or more overlapped DES seems to be a safe and feasible therapeutic strategy in our practice.

Periprocedural myocardial infarction: review and classification

Technical and pharmacologic advances have reduced the occurrence of large periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), but PMI still occurs in 6% to 18% of the cases and is associated with impaired short- and long-term survival. PMI might be due to side branch closure or flow-limiting dissection, but is most often diagnosed after apparently uncomplicated PCI and is due to atheroembolization into the microcirculation. Various definitions of PMI are used in clinical trials, but a rise in creatine kinase-MB greater than 3 to 8 times the upper limit of normal is consistently associated with worse prognosis, particularly as it reflects a more extensive and unstable atherosclerotic burden. On the other hand, data regarding the independent prognostic value of periprocedural troponin increase are conflicting. Some data suggest that PMI has a better prognosis than a spontaneously occurring myocardial infarction, and that its incidence is reduced with aggressive antiplatelet and statin therapy.

Procedure-related myonecrosis after bare and drug-eluting stent implantation

We sought to compare the incidence of myonecrosis after elective implantation of bare metal stents with that of drug-eluting stents. The data of stable patients who were treated with stenting in a single native coronary artery were analyzed retrospectively. The stents used were bare metal in 119, sirolimus-eluting (Cypher Select Plus) in 119 patients, paclitaxel-eluting (Taxus Liberté) in 120, zotarolimus-eluting (Endeavor Sprint) in 122, and everolimus-eluting (Xience V) in 72. Endpoints included post-procedural myonecrosis (any elevation of creatine kinase-MB), myocardial infarction (creatine kinase-MB>3 times the upper limit of normal), and large myocardial infarction (creatine kinase-MB>5 times the upper limit of normal). The incidences of myonecrosis (16.7%-18.9%), myocardial infarction (3.3%-8.4%), and large myocardial infarction (1.7%-5.6%) were not significantly different among stent types. At the 30-day follow-up, there were 2 deaths in patients who had Taxus Liberté stents, one death each in those with Xience V and bare metal stents, and no cases of stroke or target vessel revascularization. In this study, bare metal stents and the 4 drug-eluting stents were associated with similar low incidences of myonecrosis, myocardial infarction, and large myocardial infarction.

Comparison of long versus short ("spot") drug-eluting stenting for long coronary stenoses

We compared spot drug-eluting stenting (DES) to full stent coverage for treatment of long coronary stenoses. Consecutive, consenting patients with a long (>20 mm) coronary lesion of nonuniform severity and indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to full stent coverage of the atherosclerotic lesion with multiple, overlapping stenting (full DES group, n = 90) or spot stenting of hemodynamically significant parts of the lesion only (defined as diameter stenosis >50%; spot DES group, n = 89). At 1-year follow-up, 14 patients with full DES (15.6%) and 5 patients (5.6%) with spot DES had a major adverse cardiac event (MACE; p = 0.031). At 3 years, MACEs occurred in 18 patients with full DES (20%) and 7 patients (7.8%) with spot DES (p = 0.019). Cox proportional hazard model showed that the risk for MACEs was almost 60% lower in patients with spot DES compared to those with full DES (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.98, p = 0.044). This association remained even after controlling for age, gender, lesion length, and type of stent used (hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 1.00, p = 0.05). In conclusion, total lesion coverage with DES is not necessary in the presence of diffuse disease of nonuniform severity. Selective stenting of only the significantly stenosed parts of the lesion is an appropriate therapeutic alternative in this setting, offering a favorable clinical outcome.

Perioperative Management of Patients With Coronary Stents

Perioperative coronary stent thrombosis is a catastrophic complication that can occur in patients receiving both bare-metal and drug-eluting stents. Noncardiac surgery appears to increase the risk that recently-placed stents thrombose, especially when surgery is performed early after stenting, and particularly if dual antiplatelet therapy is discontinued. We reviewed the existing data about the frequency of stent thrombosis after noncardiac surgery and explored the impact of delay from surgery and discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. We also reviewed the data about the impact of preoperative revascularization in patients known to require noncardiac surgery. Based on these published data, we offer recommendations that can be used to guide the treatment of patients who require noncardiac surgery after having received a stent.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of overlapping sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation for the treatment of single coronary lesions has proved to be effective and durable. However, the safety and efficacy of overlapping drug-eluting stents for the treatment of long lesions have not been well established. In total, 114 patients who received overlapping drug-eluting stents were identified, 55 of whom received overlapping SESs and 59 received overlapping PESs. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were balanced. In-hospital complications were similar between the 2 groups. At 30-day and 6-month follow-ups, all clinical outcomes were also similar. In addition, the event-free survival rate was comparable (p = 0.71). Implantation of overlapping drug-eluting stents for the treatment of long, native coronary lesions is feasible and effective. In conclusion, in this observational study, clinical outcomes appeared similar in patients treated with overlapping SES implantation compared with those treated with overlapping PES implantation.

Procedural results and outcomes after extensive stent coverage with drug-eluting stent implantation in single coronary lesions

Longer stent length has remained associated with the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era; therefore, we aimed to determine clinical outcomes after extensive stent coverage with DES implantations in single coronary lesions. We evaluated the data from 99 consecutive patients treated with extensive DES coverage, defined as > or = 50 mm (mean 63.3 +/- 13.2, range 50 to 115), and a concurrent series of 466 patients with < or = 24-mm DES length (mean 18.4 +/- 3.8, range 8 to 24). The periprocedural, 1-, and 6-month outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. The baseline characteristics were mostly comparable between the 2 groups, and procedural and in-hospital outcomes were similar. Although the incidence of death and myocardial infarction at follow-up were comparable, the combined end points of target lesion revascularization plus MACEs at 6 months occurred more often with extensive stent coverage. Multivariate analysis revealed stent length to be the only independent predictor of target lesion revascularization plus MACEs. Patients treated with extensive DES coverage had similar procedural success, major in-hospital complications, and death and myocardial infarction at follow-up, but had more combined adverse events because of an overall higher target lesion revascularization rate.

Concurrent implantation of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in the same vessel

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of concurrent implantation of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting (PES) stents in the same coronary artery.

BACKGROUND

When it is impossible to deliver multiple drug eluting stents (DES) of the same type, the operator must opt to implant a different DES or a bare metal stent. There are currently no published data evaluating this approach.

METHODS

We identified all cases in which one or more SES and PES were implanted in either the same lesion or adjacent segments of the same vessel during a single procedure between March 2003 and March 2005. Endpoints analyzed were; in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and follow-up MACE (including stent thrombosis).

RESULTS

We identified 44 patients with 89 lesions. This was a complex cohort of patients with a median of 3.5 stents implanted, 3 lesions and 2 vessels treated and a median stent length implanted of 80.5 mm, while 83% of the lesions were type B2/C. Eight patients had peri-procedural myocardial infarction. During follow-up; 1 cardiac death occurred, no patients had a myocardial infarct or stent thrombosis, 11 underwent target lesion and vessel revascularization (25%) and 13 had a major adverse cardiac event (29.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of patients, the concurrent use of SES and PES in the same vessel was associated with outcomes in keeping with the complexity of disease treated. Our data show that it is not unreasonable to implant different DES in the same vessel, although we would not advocate this as routine practice.