Clinical benefit of small vessel stenting: one-year follow-up of the SISCA trial

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Among Various Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies for Small Coronary Artery Disease

It remains unclear which percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy is the most preferable in patients with small-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy of various PCI strategies for patients with small-vessel CAD through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched multiple databases for RCTs investigating the efficacy of the following PCI strategies for small-vessel CAD (<3 mm in diameter): drug-coated balloons (DCB), early-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), bare-metal stents (BMS), cutting balloon angioplasty, and balloon angioplasty (BA). The primary outcome was the trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), mostly defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization. The secondary outcomes included each component of MACE and angiographic binary restenosis. We performed a sensitivity analysis for RCTs without BMS or first-generation DES. Our search identified 29 eligible RCTs, including 8,074 patients among the 8 PCI strategies. SES significantly reduced MACE compared with BA (hazard ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.54) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 55.9%), and the rankogram analysis showed that SES was the best. There were no significant differences between DCB and newer-generation DES in any clinical outcomes, which was consistent in the sensitivity analysis. BMS and BA were ranked as the worst 2 for most clinical outcomes. In conclusion, SES was ranked as the best for reducing MACE. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between DCB and newer-generation DES. BMS and BA were regarded as the worst strategies for small-vessel CAD.

Use of heparin-coated stents in neurovascular interventional procedures: preliminary experience with 10 patients

OBJECTIVE

Currently, there is minimal published data on the use of heparin-coated stents in the neurovasculature; however, these stents have a proven clinical record in the treatment of coronary disease. This article details our experience with the safety and technical aspects of stent deployment in the first 10 patients who had heparin-coated stents placed in the intracranial and cervical vasculature and the preliminary follow-up in most cases.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical history, intra- and periprocedural data, and imaging for the patients who received heparin-coated stents in the cervical and intracranial vasculature for cerebrovascular disease between October 2002 and October 2003.

RESULTS

Thirteen heparin-coated stents were placed in 10 patients. Seven out of the 10 patients had heparin-coated stents placed in the posterior circulation; the remaining three patients had stents placed in the anterior circulation. Four patients had stents placed intracranially. There was no acute or subacute in-stent thrombosis and no procedure-related complications. Follow-up was performed on most patients, with no clinical symptoms attributable to restenosis in any patient.

CONCLUSION

This small series suggests that heparin-coated stents are safe for use in the treatment of cervical and intracranial atherosclerotic disease. Longer-term follow-up is needed to study the heparin coating effect on in-stent restenosis rates and to assess the long-term durability and clinical efficacy of this stent. The use of drug-coated stents in the cerebrovascular circulation is an area that warrants further investigation.