Interventional cardiology - Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary bifurcations
ABSTRACT The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting (PES) stent implantation in coronary bifurcations treated with either a 1-stent or 2-stent strategy.
The study used a retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive de novo bifurcations, excluding left main, treated with SES or PES between April 2003 and June 2005.
We identified 170 bifurcations in 161 patients treated with SES and 119 bifurcations in 112 patients treated with PES. During a median follow-up of 1,061 days (interquartile range 814-1,314), 43 patients (26.7%) in the SES group and 28 (25.0%) in the PES group had a major adverse cardiac event (P = .78). The angiographic restenosis rate per bifurcation was 20.9% and 25.9%, respectively (P = .41). There was no difference overall in the occurrence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) per bifurcation, 22 with SES (12.9%) and 18 with PES (15.1%), P = .61. The TLR rate was similar for SES and PES in bifurcations treated with 1 stent (6.7% vs 11.4%, P = .40) and in bifurcations treated with both branch stenting (20.0% vs 20.4%, P =1.0).
In this cohort, the long-term clinical outcomes appear similar overall between SES and PES in the treatment of coronary bifurcations irrespective of whether a 1-stent or 2-stent strategy was used.
- SourceAvailable from: Antonio Colombo
Article: CYPHER ® in complex lesions today
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The steel industry is characterized by the impressive scale of its production processes and machinery, and by ever-increasing requirements of precision and accuracy on its steel products. The drive and automation systems are amongst the most sophisticated in industry. There are two approaches to the design of these hierarchical systems. One is to structure the system as a collection of single variable subsystems. The other is to use modern multivariable control techniques to synthesize the control. The authors examine experiences with both techniques and describe their experiences using simulation to study the subsystem, the process disturbances imposed, and the interactions with other subsystems. The need for improved, shorter elapsed time and lower cost design techniques remains a continuing challenge to both theoreticians and industry engineers.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The optimal stenting strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions has not yet been defined, especially given the lack of very long-term data (>24 months). We compared our long-term results of a simple vs complex stenting strategy in patients with bifurcation lesions. We retrospectively selected subjects undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting in a bifurcation lesion between June 2002 and December 2005, comparing those treated with a simple technique vs those treated with a complex one. The primary end-point was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at >24 months of follow-up. A total of 326 patients were included, 64.7% treated with a simple technique (Group A) and 35.3% with a complex strategy (Group B). Drug-eluting stents were used in 82.0% and 73.0%, respectively (P = 0.059), final kissing balloon in 47.9% and 53.0% (P = 0.37), and procedural success obtained in 99.5% and 99.1% (P = 0.66). After a median of 34 months, MACE occurred in 52 (26.5%) in Group A and in 32 (31.4%) in Group B (P = 0.37), cardiac death in six (3.1%) vs four (3.9%, P = 0.70), myocardial infarction in 13 (6.6%) vs 6 (5.9%, P = 0.80), target vessel revascularization in 36 (18.4%) vs 29 (28.4%, P = 0.04), and bypass in five (2.6%) vs two (2%, P = 0.74). Definite stent thrombosis was adjudicated in two (1%) vs one (0.9%, P = 0.98). This study, comparing simple and complex stenting strategies for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, shows that both techniques are associated with favorable clinical results and low adverse events rates at long-term follow-up.Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 01/2009; 74(2):313-20. DOI:10.1002/ccd.22023 · 2.40 Impact Factor