Article

Deteriorative effect of smoking on target lesion revascularization after implantation of coronary stents with diameter of 3.0 mm or less.

Division of Cardiology, Saitama Cardiovascular and Respiratory Center, Kohnan, Japan.
Circulation Journal (Impact Factor: 3.58). 03/2005; 69(2):227-31. DOI: 10.1253/circj.69.227
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although smoking cessation is widely encouraged because of the associated risk of cardiovascular events, the impact of smoking on target lesion revascularization (TLR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial. Therefore, the present study retrospectively investigated the effect of smoking on TLR after plain-old balloon angioplasty (POBA; n=376) and stenting (STENT; n=434) in patients undergoing secondary coronary angiography at a single center.
A smoker was defined as current smoking or quitting within 2 years of the first PCI. In the POBA group, the predictors for TLR, as calculated by multiple logistic regression analysis, were a complex type of lesion (p<0.0001) and the left anterior descending artery (LAD) as affected vessel (p<0.05). In the STENT group, the predictors were the final % diameter of stenosis after stenting, measured by quantitative coronary arteriography (p<0.0005), LAD (p<0.01), and smoking (p=0.049). When the STENT group was divided into 2 groups according to the diameter of the implanted stent, smoking was a predictive factors for TLR in the group that received relatively small stents (diameter < or =3.0 mm) (p<0.02), but not in the group that received larger stents (diameter > or =3.5 mm).
Smoking has a deteriorative effect on TLR after implantation of relatively small coronary stents with a diameter of 3.0 mm or less.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
47 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We estimated the benefit of a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES, Cypher) for diffuse (> 10 mm) in-stent restenosis (ISR) inside bare metal stents (BMS) because the feasibility of the SES was not confirmed after its recent approval in Japan. Clinical and angiographic outcomes after SES implantation to 93 diffuse ISR were compared with those of 3 groups treated by plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA, (n = 54)), cutting balloon angioplasty (CB, (n = 24)), and BMS (n = 41) in a series of 153 patients whose follow-up quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) evaluated 3-9 months after the treatments was obtained from January 2003 through December 2005. For 33 lesions in the SES group, 12-month follow-up QCA results were obtained and compared with those at 6 months. Ticlopidine (200 mg/day) was prescribed for at least 12 weeks after SES implantation and for 2 weeks after BMS in addition to aspirin (81-100 mg/day). Patient characteristics and the characteristics of previous implanted BMS in the SES group were not significantly different from those in the other groups. Death from cardiac causes and nonfatal myocardial infarction did not occur in any group. Stent thrombosis was not observed in the BMS and SES groups. The incidence of repeat target lesion revascularization (re-TLR) in the SES group (3.23%) was significantly lower compared with that of the POBA (37.0%), CB (25.0%), and BMS (29.3%) groups (P < 0.001, respectively). Late loss in the SES group (0.44 +/- 0.41 mm) was significantly smaller than that in the BMS group (1.34 +/- 0.74 mm) (P < 0.05). The rate of recurrent ISR (re-ISR) in SES (5.38%) was significantly lower than that in POBA (46.3%), CB (41.7%), and BMS (46.3%) (P < 0.001, respectively). The QCA variables at 6 months in the SES group were not significantly different from those at 12 months. Thus, SES implantation for diffuse ISR was far superior since it markedly reduced the incidence of re-TLR with re-ISR at up to 6-months follow-up. In addition, this angiographic patency after SES implantation continued until 12 months.
    International Heart Journal 09/2006; 47(5):651-61. · 1.23 Impact Factor
  • Circulation Journal - CIRC J. 01/2007; 71(3):418-422.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cigarette smoking strongly increases morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular causes, but the relevance of smoking in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) is unknown. To assess the impact of smoking on the presentation and outcome of patients treated with DES. We analyzed data from the prospective multicentre German Drug-Eluting Stent Registry (DES.DE) and identified 1,122 patients who had never smoked and 1,052 patients who were current smokers. Smokers were younger (56.5 vs. 69.4 years, p < 0.0001), more often males, with less frequent diabetes and hypertension compared to non-smokers. Smokers presented more often with acute coronary syndromes. After a mean follow-up of 12.5 months, smokers had both higher mortality (4.6 vs. 2.7%, p < 0.05) and myocardial infarction (MI) rates (4.9 vs. 3%, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers in the rate of target vessel revascularization (9.8 vs. 11.4%, p = 0.26). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (defined as the composite of death, MI and stroke, MACCE) were higher in smokers (10.6 vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001). Moreover, after adjustment for baseline clinical and angiographic variables, smoking continued to be a strong independent predictor for MACCE (OR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.49-3.68). In a subgroup analysis, we found that the increased risk of smoking was most prominent in patients presenting with stable angina pectoris (OR = 3.71, 95% CI 1.24-2.57, p < 0.05). Smoking almost doubled the risk for MACCE in acute MI patients, though this did not reach statistical significance (adjusted OR = 1.91, 95% CI 0.93-3.94, p = 0.74). This large multicentre DES registry provides evidence that smokers treated with DES, despite lower incidence of predisposing risk factors for atherosclerosis, experience higher rates of death and MI compared to non-smokers, particularly in the setting of stable coronary artery disease. Smoking has only marginal effects on target vessel revascularization rates in patients treated with DES.
    Clinical Research in Cardiology 12/2010; 100(5):413-23. · 3.67 Impact Factor