Clinical and angiographic comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in small coronary arteries: a post hoc analysis of the SPIRIT III randomized trial

Clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a well-established role in revascularization for coronary artery disease. We performed network meta-analysis to provide evidence on optimal intervention strategies for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries.

Materials and methods

Enrolled studies were randomized clinical trials that compared different intervention strategies [balloon angioplasty (BA), biolimus-coated balloon (BCB), bare-metal stent (BMS), new-generation drug-eluting stent (New-DES), older generation sirolimus-eluting stent (Old-SES), paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB), and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)] for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

Results

A total of 23 randomized clinical trials comparing seven intervention devices were analyzed. In terms of the primary outcome, New-DES was the intervention device with the best efficacy [surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), 89.1%; mean rank, 1.7], and the Old-SES [risk ratio (RR), 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45–2.64] and PCB (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.72–2.74) secondary to New-DES, but there was no statistically significant difference between these three intervention devices. All DES and PCB were superior to BMS and BA for MACE in both primary and sensitivity analysis. For secondary outcomes, there was no association between all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) with any intervention strategy, and additionally, the findings of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were similar to the primary outcomes.

Conclusion

Paclitaxel-coated balloon yielded similar outcomes to New-DES for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries. Therefore, this network meta-analysis may provide potential support for PCB as a feasible, effective, and safe alternative intervention strategy for the revascularization of small coronary arteries.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42022338433].

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons according to coronary vessel size. A report from the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial

Introduction

In BASKET-SMALL 2, drug-coated balloons (DCB) were non-inferior to drug-eluting stents (DES) in de-novo stenosis of small coronary vessels (≤ 2.75 mm) regarding clinical endpoints up to 36 months.

Aim

In the present subgroup analysis, we aimed to analyze the effect of the two treatment strategies in different vessel sizes.

Material and methods

Patients were analyzed according to the size of the device used (small > 2.5 mm vs. very small ≤ 2.5 mm). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), while secondary endpoints were target vessel revascularization (TVR), non-fatal myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality, all at 36 months. Interactions for the different groups were assessed with Cox regression analysis.

Results

Overall, 758 patients were enrolled in this analysis, of which 437 (58%) had very small vessel disease. There were similar results in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint in both small and very small vessels (DCB vs DES, MACE at 3 years in small vessels HR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.74–2.32, p = 0.355, and very small vessels HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.49–1.39, p = 0.468). Second generation paclitaxel-eluting stents showed significantly higher rates for MACE (p = 0.041), TVR (p = 0.004) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (p = 0.036) compared to DCB in very small coronary arteries at 3 years, while results were similar in small coronary arteries.

Conclusions

Efficacy and safety of DCB are similar irrespective of vessel size. However, there is a beneficial effect of DCB over paclitaxel-eluting stents regarding TVR, non-fatal myocardial infarction and MACE that is most pronounced in very small coronary arteries.

Durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: history, current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Coronary percutaneous interventions have evolved from plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) to stent implantation, which itself evolved from bare-metal stents (BMS) to the new biodegradable stents which try to restore endothelial function. Currently, the most commonly used stent is the everolimus-eluting stent.

AREAS COVERED

This review will cover the current status of durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent, its history, and future perspectives. Nowadays, the everolimus-eluting stent is the most used device in the acute and chronic settings due to its safety and efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

Durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent, supported by much evidence, has demonstrated its efficacy and safety, not only in de novo artery lesions, but in multiples scenarios, such as the acute setting and diabetic population, becoming one of the most polyvalent stents available. Nowadays, research is focused on the reduction of antiplatelet treatment duration. Similar rates of stent thrombosis with short dual antiplatelet treatment regimens of 1 to 3 months compared to pronged treatment have been observed. However, specific studies should be performed to evaluate this possibility.

Mortality and Paclitaxel-Coated Devices: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Paclitaxel-containing devices (PTXDs) significantly reduce reintervention in patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease. A recent aggregate-data meta-analysis reported increased late mortality in patients with peripheral artery disease treated with PTXDs. We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate mortality.

METHODS

Manufacturers of US Food and Drug Administration-approved and commercially available devices in the United States provided deidentified individual patient data for independent analysis. Cox proportional hazards 1-stage meta-analysis models using intention-to-treat methods were used for the primary analysis. A secondary analysis of recovered missing vital status data was performed. The impact of control crossover to PTXDs, cause-specific mortality, and drug dose mortality were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 2185 subjects and 386 deaths from 8 PTXD trials with 4-year median follow-up were identified. The primary analysis indicated a 38% (95% CI, 6% to 80%) increased relative mortality risk, corresponding to 4.6% absolute increase, at 5 years associated with PTXD use. Control and treatment arm loss to follow-up and withdrawal were 24% and 23%, respectively. With inclusion of recovered vital status data, the excess relative mortality risk was 27% (95% CI, 3%-58%). This observation was consistent across various scenarios, including as-treated analyses, with no evidence of increased risk over time with PTXDs. Mortality risk tended to be increased for all major causes of death. There were no subgroup differences. No drug dose-mortality association was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient data meta-analysis, based on the most complete available data set of mortality events from PTXD randomized controlled trials, identified an absolute 4.6% increased mortality risk associated with PTXD use.

Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent in de novo small coronary vessel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloon as a novel therapeutic strategy has been used to treat restenosis in cases of bare metal and drug-eluting stents. However, evidence of its safety and efficacy is scarce in de novo small coronary artery vessel disease. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the drug-coated balloon and the drug-eluting stent.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases were searched for studies published up to October 17, 2018. Studies comparing the drug-coated balloon with the drug-eluting stent strategy in patients with de novo small coronary artery vessel disease (reference diameter, <3 mm) were identified. The clinical outcomes were nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiac death, all-cause death, target lesion revascularization, and target-vessel revascularization. Data were analyzed using the statistical software RevMan (version 5.3). Fixed effects models were performed to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Sensitivity analyses were used to detect potential sources of heterogeneity, while subgroup analyses were implemented to assess the differential effects.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized controlled studies were identified. Six studies including a total of 1800 patients compared the differences between the drug-coated balloon and the drug-eluting stent strategies in patients with de novo small coronary artery vessel disease. The results indicated that the drug-coated balloon strategy was associated with a significant reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.90, P = .02) compared with the drug-eluting stent strategy, while insignificant inter-strategy differences were observed in cardiac death (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73-3.33, P = .25), all-cause death (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25-1.23, P = .15), target lesion revascularization (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73-2.1, P = .43), and target-vessel revascularization (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59-1.52, P = .84).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that the drug-coated balloon strategy is noninferior to the drug-eluting stent strategy, delivering a good outcome in nonfatal myocardial infarction, and can be recommended as an optimal treatment strategy in patients with de novo small coronary artery vessel disease. Larger randomized controlled studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to further confirm the benefits of the drug-coated balloon strategy.

A propensity score matched comparative study between paclitaxel-coated balloon and everolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of small coronary vessels

OBJECTIVES

To compare the long-term clinical outcomes of paclitaxel drug-coated-balloons (DCB) and everolimus-eluting-stents (EES) following the treatment of de novo small vessel coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

It is currently unclear whether treatment of de novo small vessel coronary disease with DCB is comparable to second generation drug-eluting stents, which are the current standard of care.

METHODS

The present study enrolled 90 patients with small vessel coronary disease from the DCB treatment arm of the BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) trial and 2,000 patients treated with EES at the San Raffaele Scientific Institute. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, yielding a total of 181 patients: 90 patients with 94 lesions receiving DCB and 91 patients with 94 lesions receiving EES. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as the composite of cardiac death, recurrent non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. The cumulative MACE rate at 1-year was 12.2% with DCB and 15.4% with EES (P = 0.538). Patients in the DCB group had similar TLR rates as compared to EES over the same interval (4.4% vs. 5.6%; P = 0.720). There were no cases of definite or probable stent or vessel thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of paclitaxel-DCB appears to be associated with similar clinical outcomes when compared to second-generation-EES in small coronary artery disease. The findings of this study should be confirmed with larger prospective randomized studies with longer follow-up. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes in Real-World Patients Between Resolute Zotarilumus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Small Vessel

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term clinical outcomes between Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients with small coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

Patients with a small vessel diameter are independently associated with increased risk of adverse cardiac events after drug-eluting stent implantation.

METHODS

A cohort of 265 patients treated with R-ZES (185 patients with 211 lesions) or PES (80 patients with 100 lesions) in small vessel (≤2.5 mm) lesions were retrospectively analyzed. The primary end point of the study was the composite of major adverse cardiac events. The secondary end points included target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis at 3 years.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. In the R-ZES group, the mean stent diameter was smaller and the total stent length per lesion was longer. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 8 (10%) patients who had received PES and in 7 (3.8%) patients who had received R-ZES (P = .07). The rates of 3-year TLR (2.2% vs 2.5%; P = 1.00) and TVR (5.4% vs 10.0%; P = .17) showed no statistically significant difference between the R-ZES and PES groups. The rate of stent thrombosis was 0.5% in the R-ZES group and 2.5% in the PES group (P = .21).

CONCLUSION

The rates of major adverse cardiac events and cardiac death were similar in the R-ZES-treated group compared with the PES-treated group.

Two-year clinical outcome in patients with small coronary artery disease treated with everolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stenting

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary interventions involving small coronary vessels represent a true challenge because of the increased risk of restenosis and adverse outcomes. We evaluated the 2-year clinical outcomes between single everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in small coronary artery disease.

METHODS

From the data of SACRA (SmAll CoronaRy Artery treated by TAXUS Liberté) and PLUM (PROMUS/Xience V Everolimus-ELUting Coronary Stent for sMall coronary artery disease) registries, 245 patients with 258 lesions and 264 patients with 279 lesions, respectively, were enrolled in this study.

RESULTS

The 2-year clinical driven target lesion revascularization (4.5% vs. 10.6%, p=0.01) and target vessel revascularization (8.0% vs. 13.9%, p=0.03) rates were significantly lower in the EES group compared with the PES group. Major adverse cardiac events in the EES group tended to be lower than those in the PES group (8.7% vs. 14.3%, p=0.05). On the other hand, all new lesions for remote target vessel revascularization were observed at the proximal site of target lesions in both groups and those rates were not different between the two groups (3.4% vs. 3.3%, p>0.99).

CONCLUSION

EES showed better clinical results at 2-year follow-up compared with PES in small coronary artery diseases, however, new lesions at the proximal remote site of the target lesion remain problematic.

The everolimus-eluting Xience stent in small vessel disease: bench, clinical, and pathology view

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The pathogenesis of CAD relates to the presence of atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, which are most frequently treated today by percutaneous coronary intervention. Small vessel disease treatment represents one-third of all percutaneous coronary interventions with higher rates of restenosis and major adverse cardiac events. Initially, drug-eluting stents (DES) were developed to reduce in-stent restenosis, improving clinical outcomes and reducing the need for target vessel revascularization. However, late and very late stent thrombosis emerged as a new problem compromising DES’s long-term results. The cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-EES) represents the results of an evolutionary process in DES technology aimed at improving the shortcomings of first-generation DES. Small vessel CAD has historically been an obstacle to long-term patency following implantation of DES. Antirestenotic efficacy has been shown to be of high relevance in small vessels. Therefore, stent selection may play an important role in determining outcomes in this subgroup of patients. This article will review the performance of CoCr-EES in the treatment of small vessel CAD from preclinical, clinical, and pathology perspectives, and it will highlight the most important findings in this regard.

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.

Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in large coronary arteries of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the ICAS registry

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There are a few retrospective subgroup analyses or registries of large-vessel (≥ 3.5mm) stenting. We investigated clinical outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in large coronary vessels.

METHODS AND SUBJECTS

Of 1100 STEMI patients registered in the Ibaraki Cardiovascular Assessment Study (ICAS) multicenter registry from April 2007 to June 2012 who underwent PCI, we enrolled 454 patients (65.8 ± 12.7 years old, 81% male) with ≥ 3.5-mm stents. We excluded 53 patients with cardiogenic shock or left main trunk lesions. The remaining 401 patients were divided into Group-D, PCI with DES (n = 184), and Group-B, PCI with BMS (n = 217). Propensity score analysis matched 1:1 according to treatment with DES (n = 101) or with BMS (n = 101). We evaluated major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and incidence of stent thrombosis (ST). MACCE was defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target-vessel revascularization (TVR), or cerebrovascular accident (CVA).

ESSENTIAL RESULTS

During a mean follow-up period of 526 days, all-cause death, MI, CVA, MACCE, and ST were not significantly different in Group-D versus Group-B (all-cause death: 4.35% vs. 4.61%, p = 0.90; MI: 0% vs. 0%; CVA: 2.72% vs. 3.23%, p = 0.76; MACCE: 15.2% vs. 20.3%, p = 0.19; and ST: 0.0% vs. 1.38%, p = 0.11). After adjusting for age, insulin use, multivessel disease, intra-aortic balloon pump use, culprit lesions, and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2), MACCE was not significantly different between the groups (odds ratio: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.40-1.23; p = 0.21). However, TVR was significantly lower in Group-D than Group-B in Kaplan-Meier analysis (p = 0.048) after propensity score matching.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION

There was no advantage to using a DES in large vessels for preventing a hard endpoint, whereas DES use resulted in a significant reduction in TVR in the patients with STEMI in this registry.

Difference of vascular response between everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for small coronary artery disease: Optical coherence tomography analysis

Background

Previous clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical and angiographic superiority of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in the small coronary vessel. However, the differences of vascular response including assessment of morphological neointimal tissue (NIT) characteristics using optical coherence tomography (OCT) have not been fully evaluated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the differences of chronic vascular response following small coronary stenting between EES and PES using OCT.

Methods and results

A prospective OCT examination at 9 month follow-up was performed for 50 small coronary artery diseases (50 patients) treated by a single 2.5 mm stent for each stent group. Cross-sectional area within stent segments were analyzed at an interval of 1 mm. NIT structure (homogeneous or heterogeneous) was evaluated for qualitative assessment. Homogeneous NIT was observed significantly higher and heterogeneous NIT was lower in EES compared with PES (93% vs. 89%; p = 0.003, 6.5% vs. 10.3%; p = 0.002, respectively). The frequencies of exposed and malapposed struts were lower in EES compared with PES (0.2% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.0001, 0.1% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.001, respectively). NIT eccentricity index and NIT area were lower in EES compared with PES (0.69 ± 0.08 vs. 0.76 ± 0.10; p = 0.001, 0.97 ± 0.42 mm² vs. 1.27 ± 0.67 mm²; p = 0.01, respectively).

Conclusions

A favorable vascular response was observed after EES implantation compared with PES for small coronary artery disease. In addition, the characteristics of NIT after EES implantation were more stable than PES at 9 month follow-up.

Clinical outcomes of everolimus- and zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction for small coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There were limited data about comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with small coronary artery disease (CAD), especially in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of ZES and EES in patients with AMI for small CAD.

METHODS AND SUBJECTS

A total 1565 AMI patients treated with Endeavor-ZES (n=651) (Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or Xience V/Promus-EES (n=914) (Abbott Vascular, Temecula, CA/Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) for small CAD (stent diameter ≤ 2.75 mm) in KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry) were enrolled. After propensity score matching to adjust for baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, we compared a total 1302 patients (651 ZES and 651 EES) about major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1-year. Subgroup analysis about 1-year clinical outcomes was undertaken in patients who were discharged alive.

RESULTS

Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the two groups after propensity score matching. Total MACE did not differ between the two groups before (9.8% vs. 8.2%, p=0.265) and after (9.8% vs. 9.4%, p=0.778) propensity score matching. The EES group showed lower rate of 1-year cardiac death (5.4% vs. 3.3%, p=0.041), target lesion failure (TLF; 6.9% vs. 4.3%, p=0.022), and stent thrombosis (1.4% vs. 0.4%, p=0.042) compared with the ZES group. However, there were no differences in 1-year cardiac death, TLF, and stent thrombosis in propensity score matched populations. Other various 1-year clinical outcomes showed no difference between the two groups. Subgroup analysis in patients who were discharged alive showed similar outcomes between the two groups at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In-this propensity score matched analysis, EES and ZES showed no significant difference in clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up in patients with AMI for small CAD.

Comparison of long-term outcomes between everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in small vessels

Although second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) have demonstrated superiority over first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents for a broad subset of patients and lesions, it is unclear whether the same applies to sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs). The present study compared the long-term clinical outcomes between EESs and SESs in patients with small coronary artery disease. A cohort of 643 patients treated with EESs (220 patients with 245 lesions) or SESs (423 patients with 523 lesions) in small vessel lesions (defined as those receiving stents ≤2.5 mm) were retrospectively analyzed. The end points included target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization), and definite stent thrombosis at 1 year of follow-up. The baseline characteristics were generally similar between the 2 groups, except that more systemic hypertension was seen in the EES group and more patients had a family history of coronary artery disease in the SES group. The 1-year target lesion revascularization (5.6% vs 4.8%, p = 0.68) and target vessel revascularization (5.6% vs 7.6%, p = 0.33) rates showed no significant differences between the EES and SES groups. Overall major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 9.1% of the EES- and 8.6% of SES-treated patients (p = 0.83). This similar major adverse cardiovascular events rate remained after adjustment. The rate of stent thrombosis was 0% in the EES group and 1.2% in the SES group (p = 0.17). In conclusion, EESs demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes to those of SESs in small vessel interventions. The absence of stent thrombosis among patients treated with EESs suggests a good safety profile for this second-generation drug-eluting stent, which should be carefully studied in a larger series of patients 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.

The real world experience of the everolimus-eluting coronary stent system: audit of everolimus-eluting coronary stents

AIMS

To investigate the safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in a real world population, including those with high-risk characteristics and complex lesions.

METHODS

In this report, we analyze 2-year outcomes in 500 consecutive unselected patients treated with EES between April 2007 and March 2008. All patients were followed for 2 years for adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 995 EES deployed in 792 lesions. The indication for the coronary procedure was acute coronary syndrome in 94.2% of patients. Bifurcations were involved in 21% of lesions, 3.5% degenerated vein grafts, 2.7% left main stem stenoses, 33% multivessel disease, 4.5% in-stent restenosis, and 79.1% AHA/ACC classification B2/C lesions. The major adverse cardiac event rate (composite of cardiovascular death, acute myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) was 10.6%. Target lesion revascularization was required in 4.0% patients, 1.4% for in-stent thrombosis. These event rates are comparable with studies involving lower risk patients and less complex coronary lesions.

CONCLUSION

The use of EES, even in this real world, high-risk population, continues to demonstrate safety and efficacy rates comparable with current studies in more selected patient groups and, therefore, may justify current practice to utilize EES in "off label" situations.

Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in large coronary arteries

BACKGROUND

Recent data have suggested that patients with coronary disease in large arteries are at increased risk for late cardiac events after percutaneous intervention with first-generation drug-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents. We sought to confirm this observation and to assess whether this increase in risk was also seen with second-generation drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 2314 patients needing stents that were 3.0 mm or more in diameter to receive sirolimus-eluting, everolimus-eluting, or bare-metal stents. The primary end point was the composite of death from cardiac causes or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 2 years. Late events (occurring during months 7 to 24) and target-vessel revascularization were the main secondary end points.

RESULTS

The rates of the primary end point were 2.6% among patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents, 3.2% among those receiving everolimus-eluting stents, and 4.8% among those receiving bare-metal stents, with no significant differences between patients receiving either drug-eluting stent and those receiving bare-metal stents. There were also no significant between-group differences in the rate of late events or in the rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. Rates of target-vessel revascularization for reasons unrelated to myocardial infarction were 3.7% among patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents, 3.1% among those receiving everolimus-eluting stents, and 8.9% among those receiving bare-metal stents. The rate of target-vessel revascularization was significantly reduced among patients receiving either drug-eluting stent, as compared with a bare-metal stent, with no significant difference between the two types of drug-eluting stents.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients requiring stenting of large coronary arteries, no significant differences were found among sirolimus-eluting, everolimus-eluting, and bare-metal stents with respect to the rate of death or myocardial infarction. With the two drug-eluting stents, similar reductions in rates of target-vessel revascularization were seen. (Funded by the Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation and the Swiss National Foundation for Research; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN72444640.).