Article

Comparison of late luminal loss response pattern after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation or conventional stenting.

Heart Institute (InCor), University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Circulation (Impact Factor: 14.95). 12/2004; 110(20):3199-205. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000147275.50550.68
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We investigated the pattern of late luminal loss after sirolimus-eluting or bare stent implantation.
The study population comprised 238 patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents and 526 patients treated with conventional stents. The distribution of late loss of sirolimus stents was largely skewed to the right and differed from the distribution for bare stents. When divided according to the presence of binary restenosis (diameter stenosis >50%), restenotic lesions in the bare stent group (26.0%) had a late loss of 1.40+/-0.64 mm and in the sirolimus group (7.9%) of 1.16+/-0.76 mm. Nonrestenotic lesions in the bare stent group had a late loss of 0.58+/-0.44 mm, whereas the late loss of nonrestenotic lesions in the sirolimus group remained close to zero (-0.05+/-0.33 mm). Differences between poststenting and follow-up measurements in the sirolimus group (late loss) resembled variations observed in repeated angiographic measurements, as assessed from a random sample of 30 segments measured repeatedly. After multivariate adjustment, stent type did not influence the degree of late loss in restenotic lesions. However, nonrestenotic bare stents had a significantly larger estimated luminal loss (0.58 mm; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.65) than sirolimus-eluting stents, for which the predicted late loss was almost 0 (-0.04 mm; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.02).
The pattern of late loss after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation follows a peculiar behavior, different from lesions treated with conventional stents. Whether this is explained by an unusual statistical distribution or a biological all-or-none response of restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stenting remains to be investigated.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Patrick W Serruys, Jun 17, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
53 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We tested two novel drug-eluting stents (DES), covered with a biodegradable-polymer carrier and releasing paclitaxel or sirolimus, which were compared against a bare metal stent (primary objective). The DES differed by the drug, but were identical otherwise, allowing to compare the anti-restenosis effects of sirolimus versus paclitaxel (secondary objective). The efficacy of novel DES with biodegradable polymers should be tested in the context of randomized trials, even when using drugs known to be effective, such as sirolimus and paclitaxel. Overall, 274 patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels scheduled for stent implantation were randomly assigned (2:2:1 ratio) for the paclitaxel (n = 111), sirolimus (n = 106), or bare metal stent (n = 57) groups. Angiographic follow-up was obtained at 9 months and major cardiac adverse events up to 12 months. Both paclitaxel and sirolimus stents reduced the 9-month in-stent late loss (0.54-0.44 mm, 0.32-0.43 mm, vs. 0.90-0.45 mm respectively), and 1-year risk of target vessel revascularization and combined major adverse cardiac events (P < 0.05 for both, in all comparisons), compared with controls. Sirolimus stents had lower late loss than paclitaxel stents (P < 0.01), but similar 1-year clinical outcomes. There were no differences in the risk of death, infarction, or stent thrombosis among the study groups. Both novel DES were effective in reducing neointimal hyperplasia and 1-year re-intervention, compared to bare metal stents. Our findings also suggest that sirolimus is more effective than paclitaxel in reducing angiographic neointima, although this effect was not associated with better clinical outcomes.
    Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 11/2009; 74(5):665-73. DOI:10.1002/ccd.22166 · 2.40 Impact Factor
  • Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 07/2008; 72(1):1-6. DOI:10.1002/ccd.21541 · 2.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drug-eluting stents effectively inhibit neointimal hyperplasia within the first year, thereby reducing the need for repeat revascularization. However, a delayed pattern of restenosis might be more prominent in drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents (BMSs). The extent of restenosis of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) long term after implantation in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is currently unknown. The present study was designed to evaluate very late luminal loss (VLLL) of PESs used in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction compared to BMSs. A total of 116 patients (61 with PESs and 55 with BMSs) initially included in the Paclitaxel Eluting Stent Versus Conventional Stent in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (PASSION) trial and who were free from previous lesion failure underwent angiographic follow-up. Off-line quantitative coronary analysis of the angiogram immediately after stent implantation and at follow-up was performed. The primary end point was VLLL within the stent. The presence of binary restenosis was defined as diameter stenosis >50% as a secondary end point. The mean interval between stent implantation and follow-up was 4.1 ± 0.5 years in both stent groups. In-stent VLLL was 0.12 mm (interquartile range -0.03 to 0.42) in the PES group versus 0.30 mm (interquartile range 0.08 to 0.69) in the BMS group (p = 0.011). In-segment binary restenosis was found in 4 patients (6.6%) with a PES and 6 patients (10.9%) with a BMS (p = 0.40). In conclusion, angiographic follow-up 4 years after implantation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction showed that in patients prospectively randomized to PESs or BMSs, VLLL was low in both stent groups. PESs were associated with lower VLLL than BMSs, and the observed rate of binary restenosis was not significantly different between the 2 stent groups.
    The American journal of cardiology 08/2011; 108(9):1214-9. DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.034 · 3.43 Impact Factor