Direct Stent Implantation Using the EXPRESStm Coronary Stent System:. Results of a Multi-Center Feasibility Study

Internistische Klinik Dr. Müller, Herzkatheterlabor Cardiology Associates, Munich, Germany.
Journal of Interventional Cardiology (Impact Factor: 1.32). 01/2004; 16(6):491-7. DOI: 10.1046/j.1540-8183.2003.01057.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this prospective, multicenter, single arm study was to assess the safety and feasibility of EXPRESS Coronary Stent implantation in native coronary arteries without balloon predilatation. Forty-two patients with de novo or restenotic lesions were enrolled, of which 38 were eligible for analysis. The coronary lesions were predominantly complex, occurring in arteries with a mean reference diameter of 2.80 +/- 0.49 mm. Technical and procedural success were achieved in 89.5% and 84% of the cases respectively. The mean minimal lumen diameter increased from 1.08 +/- 0.26 mm to 2.55 +/- 0.44 mm and diameter stenosis decreased from 61 +/- 7% to 13 +/- 8%. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days was 2.6% and was limited to only one event (target vessel revascularization, nontarget lesion). No other MACE were observed during the three-month follow-up period. Based on the findings of this study, direct stenting with the EXPRESS Stent appears feasible and is well tolerated.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although direct coronary stenting does not improve angiographic outcome, it makes sense by reducing procedure times, radiation exposure and costs. Other potential advantages of direct stenting may be a reduction of myocardial ischemia time, which could be clinically relevant in high-risk patients. With the introduction of drug-eluting stents, however, concern arose that direct stenting would possibly damage the polymer coating and change or diminish the efficacy of the programmed drug release. Also, concerns about safety by preventing optimal apposition of single stent struts developed. It is the purpose of this paper to retrospectively analyze the data from the TAXUS-II Trial (536 patients) regarding patients with and without direct stenting. While predilatation was recommended per protocol, direct stenting was not forbidden: thus, direct stenting was performed in 49 patients (TAXUS n = 23, control n = 26). In the TAXUS groups, there was no significant difference regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE; 7.5% vs. 4.3%), angiographic restenosis in the analysis segment (4.8% vs. 4.3%), late loss (0.28 +/- 0.36 vs. 0.33 +/- 0.30 mm) or intravascular ultrasound-(IVUS-)measured volume obstruction (7.95 +/- 9.84% vs. 5.61 +/- 7.91%) at six months between the predilated and directly stented patients. The same was true for the patients receiving the control stent. Compared with the directly stented control group, the statistically significant positive effects of TAXUS direct stenting were maintained, regarding angiographic restenosis in the analysis segment (4.3% vs. 30.8%), late loss (0.33 +/- 0.30 vs. 0.80 +/- 0.62 mm) or IVUS-measured volume obstruction (5.61 +/- 7.91% vs. 22.50 +/- 21.62%) at six months. MACE was reduced from 19.2% to 4.3%; due to the small number of patients this trend did not reach statistical significance. After predilatation, all parameters were significantly improved by the TAXUS stent. Comparison of patients receiving TAXUS stents with or without predilatation revealed no differences in clinical, angiographic or IVUS parameters at six months. This suggests that direct stenting with the polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent is feasible, safe and equally effective. Randomized trials comparing stenting after predilatation versus direct stenting with drug-eluting stents are warranted.
    Herz 04/2004; 29(2):171-80. DOI:10.1007/s00059-004-2575-3 · 0.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of drugeluting stents (DES) has tackled the “Achilles’ heel” of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) like no innovation before: the restenosis following initially successful PCI of de novo stenoses. Today, with DES, the pivotal clinical parameter TVF (target vessel failure) is in the upper single- digit range for “standard” lesions and 16% for long lesions.Numerous studies have assessed the effects of various antiproliferative and antiinflammatory substances, like Sirolimus, Tacrolimus, Everolimus, ABT-578, Biolimus, Paclitaxel, QP2 as well as of other drugs, like Dexamethasone, 17--Estradiol, Batimastat, Actinomycin-D, Methotrexat, Angiopeptin, Tyrosinkinase inhibitors, Vincristin, Mitomycin, Cyclosporin, and also the C-myc antisense technology (Resten-NG, AVI-4126). At the time of this analysis, four DES are CE-certified and commercially available in Europe: The Cypher stent, releasing Sirolimus from a polymer (Cordis, J&J), the Taxus stent, releasing Paclitaxel from a polymer (Boston-Scientific), the V-Flex stent, releasing Paclitaxel without a polymer (Cook) and the Dexamet stent, releasing Dexamethasone from a PC coating (Abbott). Since more DES will be CE-certified soon, an increasing challenge vexes interventional cardiologists and health care providers: Which DES should be chosen for routine patient care?A prerequisite for assessing the efficacy of DES are randomized, controlled trials. Registries, even with strong monitoring, are limited by the known restrictions, comparing data to historical controls. At the time of this analysis, only three drugs had proven their efficacy in 13 randomized studies in 5669 patients: Paclitaxel, Sirolimus and Everolimus, with 3815 patients in Paclitaxel studies, 1748 patients in Sirolimus studies and 106 patients in Everolimus studies.For further analysis, it makes sense to divide the primary endpoints into non-clinical and clinical endpoints. Non-clinical primary endpoints are usually angiographic parameters, like the percentage of DS (diameter stenosis, ASPECT, ELUTES), the instent LLL (late lumen loss, RAVEL, FUTURE-II), the in-stent MLD (minimal lumen diameter, E-SIRIUS, C-SIRIUS) or, like in TAXUS-II, the IVUS-determined percentage of volume obstruction. Clinical primary endpoints were either MACE (major adverse cardiac events, TAXUS-I, FUTUREI), TVF (target vessel failure, DELIVER-I, SIRIUS) or TVR (target vessel revascularization, TAXUS-IV und TAXUS-VI). As ASPECT, ELUTES and DELIVER-I have shown, even a statistically significant effect on an angiographic primary endpoint does not necessarily translate into a significant clinical effect, which is completely absent in some such cases.Since it is not the goal of PCI to improve angiographic parameters but rather to improve patients’ outcome, the choice of DES for routine treatment should be based on the results of randomized controlled studies with a clinical primary endpoint at an appropriate time interval. At the present time, these criteria have been met by only the Cypher and the Taxus stents.
    Zeitschrift für Kardiologie 01/2004; 93(9). · 0.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In Europe, 1,108 percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) per one Mio inhabitants are currently annually performed, most of them with stent implantation. Drug-eluting stents have been the focus of attention of interventional coronary therapy since the RAVEL study was first presented in September 2001 at the European Society of Cardiology Meeting. Ever since, numerous studies have assessed the effects of various antiproliferative and anti-inflammatory substances and a variety of different stents was used as platform, either covered with polymer carriers of different chemical and physical properties or without a polymer carrier. CE- or FDA-certified drug-eluting stents are increasingly replacing the use of bare metal stents to reduce in-stent restenosis. Today, physicians have a choice of several approved drug-eluting stents and, therefore, need some evidence-based guidance through the "jungle of information" to make the right decisions. Even when focusing on randomized trials, differences between the studies regarding primary endpoints and sample sizes exist, making it difficult to compare the various drug-eluting stent studies. Randomized studies use either nonclinical (i.e., angiographic diameter stenosis, in-stent MLD, or in-stent late lumen loss) or clinical (i.e., TVF, TVR, and MACE) parameters as primary endpoints. Choosing an angiographic parameter as primary endpoint results in two major limitations: first, a significant improvement of an angiographic "surrogate" parameter does not necessarily translate into a better clinical outcome (DELIVER-I); second, conclusions regarding possible improvements of clinical outcome are underpowered, because the sample size calculation is based on the primary endpoint. Usually the number of patients needed is lower for angiographic than for clinical endpoints. Until today, only three trials with a primary clinical endpoint have shown a significantly positive impact on patients' outcome: the SIRIUS trial (Cypher stent) with its reduction of primary endpoint TVF (21.0% vs 8.6%), the TAXUS-IV trial (Taxus stent) with its reduction of primary endpoint TVR (12.0% vs 4.7%) and TAXUS-VI in long lesions with its reduction of primary endpoint TVR (19.4% vs 9.1%). Although the angiographic results of other drug-eluting stents are encouraging, they will have to prove their clinical impact based on adequately powered randomized trials with a primary clinical endpoint at an adequate time interval.
    Journal of Interventional Cardiology 01/2005; 17(6):375-85. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-8183.2004.04079.x · 1.32 Impact Factor