Clinical and angiographic features of small vessel stenting in the drug-eluting stent era

Two-year clinical outcomes of the NOBORI biolimus-eluting stents versus XIENCE/PROMUS everolimus-eluting stents in small vessel disease

BACKGROUND

Biolimus-eluting stents (BES) have similar efficacy and safety compared with cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES), whereas it is unclear whether the same applies to small vessel disease. We sought compare clinical outcomes between BES and CoCr-EES in patients with small vessel disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1,132 patients treated only with BES (612 patients) or EES (520 patients) in small vessel disease (stent size 2.5-mm) were retrospectively analyzed. We assessed the cumulative 2-year incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis (ST), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). The cumulative 2-year incidence of MACE was similar between the two groups (12.1% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.77). The cumulative incidence of cardiac death, CD-TLR, and definite ST were also not significantly different between both groups (3.2% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.78; 8.3% vs. 8.4%, P = 1.00; 0.33% vs. 0.21%, P = 0.66, respectively). After multivariate adjusting, the adjusted risk of BES group relative to CoCr-EES group for MACE was not significantly different (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 0.53-1.15, P = 0.20). Similarly, no significant difference in the adjusted risks for cardiac death and CD-TLR were observed between the two groups (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28-1.37, P = 0.24; HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.51-1.29, P = 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-year clinical outcomes of BES are similar to those of CoCr-EES in patients with small vessel disease. The use of BES is acceptable for small coronary artery disease. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Clinical outcomes in real-world patients with small vessel disease treated with XIENCE V® everolimus-eluting stents: one year results from the XIENCE V® USA condition of approval post-market study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 1-year clinical outcomes of more complex XIENCE V USA real-world patients with small versus nonsmall vessel lesions.

BACKGROUND

Patients with small vessel lesions undergoing coronary stent placement are at higher risk of major adverse cardiac events. Improved safety and efficacy of XIENCE V everolimus eluting stents (EES) have been previously demonstrated in selected low-risk small vessel populations in randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

The XIENCE V USA study was a condition of approval, single-arm study in unselected real-world patients. Baseline and 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between XIENCE V USA patients who received a single 2.5 mm stent (small vessel group, N = 838) and patients implanted with a single >2.5 mm stent (non-small vessel group, N = 2,015). Mean reference vessel diameter was 2.55 ± 0.36 and 3.25 ± 0.46 mm in the small and non-small vessel groups, respectively (P < 0.001).

RESULTS

Small vessel group had more females, presented with a higher rate of diabetes, and had more complex lesion characteristics. The definite or probable ST rates analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method were low and not significantly different between the groups at 0.37 and 0.40% for the small and nonsmall vessel group (P = 0.88), respectively. The composite rate of cardiac death or MI was comparable at 4.5% for the small and 5.1% for the non-small vessel 1 groups (P = 0.57). The 1-year target lesion revascularization rate was also comparable in the small vessel group (3.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite gender difference, higher prevalence of diabetes and more complex lesions in the small vessel groups, the 1-year clinical outcomes were similar in both small and nonsmall vessel groups. These results demonstrate the therapeutic benefit of XIENCE V EES in a real-world all inclusive patient population with small vessel disease.

One-year outcome of small-vessel disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stents: a subgroup analysis of the e-SELECT registry

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the characteristics and one-year outcomes following sirolimus-eluting CYPHER Select Plus stent (SES) implantation in small (SmVD) and non-small vessel disease (NSmVD) in the international e-SELECT registry.

BACKGROUND

Large-scale registry data are lacking on DES outcomes in SmVD treatment.

METHODS

There were 4,700 SmVD (at least one vessel with estimated reference vessel diameter [RVD] < 2.5 mm, excluding 283 patients with unknown RVD vessels) and 10,139 NSmVD only patients.

RESULTS

The SmVD population was older, with more women, diabetics, and vessels treated, higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score (CCI), shorter lesions, and less STEMI presentation. The 1-year stent thrombosis (ST) rate (primary end-point), was significantly higher (1.3% vs. 0.7%) in SmVD versus NSmVD, mainly driven by early events. One-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization (TLR) rates were significantly higher in SmVD although death and major bleeding rates were similar in both groups. Complication rates were similar between pure (3,188 patients; only RVD < 2.5 mm) and mixed (1,795 patients; some RVD < 2.5 mm or unknown RVD) SmVD. Multivariate predictors for 1-year MACE in SmVD included saphenous vein graft or bifurcation lesions, major bleeding, any antiplatelet therapy discontinuation within 1 month, age, number of stents implanted, CCI, acute coronary syndrome, and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION

SES implantation for SmVD occurs more frequently in women, diabetics, and those with multivessel disease and comorbidities. One-year ST, MACE, MI, and clinically indicated TLR rates are higher, although low overall, in SmVD or mixed SmVD patients while death rates are similar to NSmVD.

Gender Disparity in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes – Does it Still Exist in Contemporary Practice?

Introduction: Prior studies have demonstrated evidence of a disparity in the treatment and outcome of male compared to female patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Materials and Methods: From a dedicated database, we retrospectively analysed all consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) admitted to our institution for PCI in 2008. Baseline and procedural characteristics as well as complications were then evaluated for male patients (n = 331) as compared with female patients (n = 137). Results: Women were noted to be older at the time of presentation (66.1 ± 10.0 vs 60.7 ± 11.6 years, P <0.00001), the groups were otherwise well matched in terms of baseline characteristics. Female patients were treated with significantly smaller diameter stents (2.86 ± 0.44 vs 2.96 ± 0.50 mm, P = 0.04), though the proportion of drug-eluting stents was similar (53.7% vs 50.5%, P = 0.5). Female patients were significantly less likely to receive optimal medical therapy with lesser use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (26.3% vs 55.3%, P <0.0000001), and beta-blockers (83.9% vs 90.9%, P = 0.04). At 30 days, there were no differences in the rate of major adverse cerebrovascular or cardiac events (2.9% vs 3.9%, P = 0.8), though females had a significantly higher rate of femoral access site pseudoaneurysm (4.4% vs 0.9%, P = 0.02). Conclusions: There remains evidence for continued gender disparity in contemporary practice; despite evidence for efficacy in ACS patients, females received a notably lower use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and beta-blockers. Women are also significantly more likely to develop femoral access site complications with pseudoaneurysm development; it is important therefore to optimise procedures for sheath removal in female patients or give strong consideration to the use of radial access site. Key words: Angioplasty, Female, Stent