Does Large Vessel Size Justify Use of Bare-Metal Stents in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?

Optimising Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: The Impact of Stent Type and Diameter on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Large Coronary Arteries

Background and Objectives: Our study aimed to reveal the effect of using 4 mm bare-metal stents (BMS), 4 mm drug-eluting stents (DES), or 3 mm DES with 4 mm diameter balloon post-dilation strategies on long-term clinical outcomes and endpoints for large-diameter coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Materials and Methods: In our study, patients who had undergone PCI were retrospectively screened between January 2014 and July 2020. The study included 350 patients and was divided into three groups; Group I (n = 134) included patients with direct 4.0 mm BMS implantation, Group II (n = 109) included patients with direct 4.0 DES implantation, and Group III (n = 107) included patients with 4mm NC post-dilatation after 3 mm DES implantation. Primary endpoints were determined as target lesion revascularisation, cardiac mortality, and myocardial infarction associated with the target vessel. Our secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results: No differences were observed between the groups in terms of the baseline variables. Stent length was the highest in Group II and the shortest in Group III. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Conclusions: Our study suggests that in percutaneous coronary interventions for non-complex lesions, there is no significant difference in MACE outcomes when directly implanting a 4 mm diameter DES, a 4 mm diameter BMS, or a 3 mm diameter DES, followed by post-dilation with an appropriately sized NC balloon when the target vessel diameter is in the range of 4 to 4.4 mm.

Nanotechnology in development of next generation of stent and related medical devices: Current and future aspects

Coronary stents have saved millions of lives in the last three decades by treating atherosclerosis especially, by preventing plaque protrusion and subsequent aneurysms. They attenuate the vascular SMC proliferation and promote reconstruction of the endothelial bed to ensure superior revascularization. With the evolution of modern stent types, nanotechnology has become an integral part of stent technology. Nanocoating and nanosurface fabrication on metallic and polymeric stents have improved their drug loading capacity as well as other mechanical, physico-chemical, and biological properties. Nanofeatures can mimic the natural nanofeatures of vascular tissue and control drug-delivery. This review will highlight the role of nanotechnology in addressing the challenges of coronary stents and the recent advancements in the field of related medical devices. Different generations of stents carrying nanoparticle-based formulations like liposomes, lipid-polymer hybrid NPs, polymeric micelles, and dendrimers are discussed highlighting their roles in local drug delivery and anti-restenotic properties. Drug nanoparticles like Paclitaxel embedded in metal stents are discussed as a feature of first-generation drug-eluting stents. Customized precision stents ensure safe delivery of nanoparticle-mediated genes or concerted transfer of gene, drug, and/or bioactive molecules like antibodies, gene mimics via nanofabricated stents. Nanotechnology can aid such therapies for drug delivery successfully due to its easy scale-up possibilities. However, limitations of this technology such as their potential cytotoxic effects associated with nanoparticle delivery that can trigger hypersensitivity reactions have also been discussed in this review. This article is categorized under: Implantable Materials and Surgical Technologies > Nanotechnology in Tissue Repair and Replacement Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Nanomedicine for Cardiovascular Disease Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Emerging Technologies.

Relationship between stent length and very long-term target lesion failure following percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the drug-eluting stents era: insights from the EXAMINATION-EXTEND study

BACKGROUND

Little data exist on the relationship between total stent length (TSL) and cardiovascular outcomes at very-long follow-up in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the 2nd generation drug-eluting stents (DES) era.

AIM

To analyze the relationship between TSL and 10-year target-lesion failure (TLF) in STEMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention enrolled in the EXAMINATION-EXTEND.

METHODS

The EXAMINATION-EXTEND was an extended-follow-up study of the EXAMINATION trial, which randomized 1:1 STEMI patients to receive DES or bare metal stent (BMS). The primary endpoint was TLF, defined as a composite of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST). Relationship between stent length and TLF was evaluated in the whole study group in a multiple-adjusted Cox regression model with TSL as a quantitative variable. Subgroup analysis was also performed according to stent type, diameter, and overlap.

RESULTS

A total of 1,489 patients with a median TSL of 23 mm (Q1-Q318-35 mm) were included. TSL was associated with TLF at 10 years (adjusted HR per 5 mm increase of 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.14; P = .02). This effect was mainly driven by TLR and was consistent regardless of stent type, diameter, or overlap. There was no significant relationship between TSL and TV-MI or ST.

CONCLUSIONS

In STEMI patients, there is a direct relationship between TSL implanted in the culprit vessel and the risk of TLF at 10 years, mainly driven by TLR. The use of DES did not modify this association.

Stent Thrombosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: From Bare-Metal to the Last Generation of Drug-Eluting Stents

Since their introduction in clinical practice in 1986, different types of coronary stents have been developed and become available for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent thrombosis (ST) is an uncommon but harmful complication after percutaneous coronary implantation, with a high occurrence of acute myocardial infarction and risk of mortality. Among several procedural and clinical predictors, the type of coronary stent is a strong determinant of ST. This article reviews the available evidence on the most used coronary stent types in the modern era and the related risk of ST.

Stent Selection for Primary Angioplasty and Outcomes in the Era of Potent Antiplatelets. Data from the Multicenter Randomized Prague-18 Trial

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the recommended stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to determine why interventional cardiologists used non-DES and how it influenced patient prognoses. The efficacy and safety outcomes of the different stents were also compared in patients treated with either prasugrel or ticagrelor. Of the PRAGUE-18 study patients, 749 (67.4%) were treated with DES, 296 (26.6%) with bare-metal stents (BMS), and 66 (5.9%) with bioabsorbable vascular scaffold/stents (BVS) between 2013 and 2016. Cardiogenic shock at presentation, left main coronary artery disease, especially as the culprit lesion, and right coronary artery stenosis were the reasons for selecting a BMS. The incidence of the primary composite net-clinical endpoint (EP) (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, serious bleeding, or revascularization) at seven days was 2.5% vs. 6.3% and 3.0% in the DES, vs. with BMS and BVS, respectively (HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.419–5.15, p = 0.002 for BMS vs. DES and 1.25 (0.29–5.39) p = 0.76 for BVS vs. DES). Patients with BMS were at higher risk of death at 30 days (HR 2.20; 95% CI 1.01–4.76; for BMS vs. DES, p = 0.045) and at one year (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.19–3.69; p = 0.01); they also had a higher composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, and stroke (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.0–2.74; p = 0.047) at one year. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of primary EP whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. In conclusion, patients with the highest initial risk profile were preferably treated with BMS over BVS. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.

Stent Thrombosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: From Bare-Metal to the Last Generation of Drug-Eluting Stents

Since their introduction in clinical practice in 1986, different types of coronary stents have been developed and become available for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent thrombosis (ST) is an uncommon but harmful complication after percutaneous coronary implantation, with a high occurrence of acute myocardial infarction and risk of mortality. Among several procedural and clinical predictors, the type of coronary stent is a strong determinant of ST. This article reviews the available evidence on the most used coronary stent types in the modern era and the related risk of ST.

Antithrombotic Therapy for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions: From Coronary Artery Disease to Structural Heart Interventions

Percutaneous cardiovascular interventions have changed dramatically in recent years, and the impetus given by the rapid implementation of novel techniques and devices have been mirrored by a refinement of antithrombotic strategies for secondary prevention, which have been supported by a significant burden of evidence from clinical studies. In the current manuscript, we aim to provide a comprehensive, yet pragmatic, revision of the current available evidence regarding antithrombotic strategies in the domain of percutaneous cardiovascular interventions. We revise the evidence regarding antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention in coronary artery disease and stent implantation, the complex interrelation between antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with concomitant atrial fibrillation, and finally focus on the novel developments in the secondary prevention after structural heart disease intervention. A special focus on treatment individualization is included to emphasize risk and benefits of each therapeutic strategy.