The use of drug eluting stents in single and multivessel disease: results from a single centre experience

Influence of Prior Coronary Stenting on the Immediate and Mid-term Outcome of Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Background

There has been little emphasis on the possible consequences of prior stent placement on the outcome of coronary bypass surgery (CABG). We compared the results of isolated CABG patients who had prior stents with those who had not with respect to preoperative status, operative procedure, and postoperative immediate and long-term outcome.

Methods

Records of 1471 patients undergoing isolated CABG at our institution between January 1, 2000, and March 31, 2005, were reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups. Group I had no stents (n = 1317). Group II had one to three stents (n = 137). Group III had more than three stents (n = 17). Groups were compared with respect to preoperative risk factors, operative procedures, and postoperative results. Long-term survival data were obtained on 97.6% of patients with a mean follow-up, 4.1 ± 2.3 years.

Results

Stented patients were younger (66.1 ± 10.8 vs. 69.1 ± 10.8 years, P = 0.006), had more unstable angina (68.2% vs. 58.9%, P = 0.02), hypercholesterolemia (83.8% vs. 61.2%, P = 0.00), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (13.6% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.03), peripheral vascular disease (15.2% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.00), and previous CABG (10.1% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.00), fewer low ejection fractions (1.3% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.02), left main disease (25.3% vs. 32.6%, P = 0.04), diabetes (31.2% vs. 40.8%, P = 0.01), or diffuse disease (19.5 ± 10.5 vs. 22.5 ± 10.9, P = 0.00), had more off pump procedures (53.2% vs. 45.3%, P = 0.03), fewer internal thoracic artery grafts (80.5% vs. 86.6%, P = 0.03), fewer grafts placed (>3: 52.6% vs. 61.8%, P = 0.02), more complications (76.5% vs. 42.6%, P = 0.005), atrial fibrillation (47.1% vs. 19.7%, P = 0.011), longer hospital stays (12.2 vs. 8.3 days, P = 0.019). Percentage survival for groups I, II, and III at 60 months was 82.1%, 84.7%, and 72.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

Stents placed before surgery in isolated CABG patients may be associated with higher preoperative risk, altered operative procedures, more postoperative complications, longer hospitalizations, and more readmissions. Overall, stented patients experienced more preoperative hospitalizations, catheterizations, and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) than nonstented patients. Survival for those with more than three stents may be diminished.

Update on drug-eluting coronary stents

The introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) to interventional cardiology practice has resulted in a significant improvement in the long-term efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions. DES successfully combine mechanical benefits of bare-metal stents and stabilizing the lumen, with direct delivery and the controlled elution of a pharmacologic agent to the injured vessel wall to suppress further neointimal proliferation. The dramatic reduction in restenosis has resulted in the implementation of DES in clinical practice, and has rapidly expanded the whole spectrum of successfully treatable coronary conditions, particularly in high-risk patients and complex lesions. In this review the authors present current data on DES. Currently, two types of DES are available in the USA: sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) CYPHER (Cordis Corp., FL, USA) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) TAXUS (Boston Scientific, MA, USA), and many more are on the way to approval. In addition to sirolimus and paclitaxel, several other drugs have been successfully used in DES. Everolimus and ABT-578 are both analogs of sirolimus that also have immunosuppressive and antiproliferative properties. Another approach in the development of DES is to use drugs that can accelerate re-endothelialization and restore normal endothelial function following vascular injury. Recent advances in vascular gene transfer have also demonstrated potential new treatment modalities for cardiovascular disease, particularly in the treatment of vascular restenosis.

Three-year survival following multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal or drug-eluting stents in unselected patients

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown to reduce the rate of repeat revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs) after multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in carefully selected patients. However, the long-term safety and efficacy of DESs in patients with multivessel disease outside the setting of randomized trials was unknown. Therefore, all patients undergoing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention with BMSs, sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs), or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) from January 2000 to December 2005 were investigated. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. A total of 1,720 patients were recruited in 3 consecutive sequential groups of BMS (n=701; January 2000 to April 2002), SES (n=293; April 2002 to February 2003), and PES (n=726; February 2003 to December 2005). Overall median follow-up was 1,440 days. There was improved 3-year survival in the SES group (93.7%) compared with both the BMS (86.1%) and PES groups (87.3%), which remained significant after propensity score adjustment for differences in baseline and procedural characteristics (SES vs BMS, adjusted hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.94; SES vs PES, adjusted hazard ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.87). There was no difference in mortality between the PES and BMS groups. Both DES types significantly reduced the need for clinically driven target-vessel and target-lesion revascularization without an excess in myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. In conclusion, both SESs and PESs significantly reduced the need for repeated revascularization in these patients with no excess in mortality. SESs might reduce mortality in patients undergoing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.

Utility of drug-eluting stents in complex lesions and high-risk patients

Drug-eluting stents represent a breakthrough technology designed to deliver high concentrations of a bioactive agent locally to an atherosclerotic lesion, thereby minimizing systemic side effects of the drug. The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents have clearly been demonstrated in noncomplex lesions. This article presents an evidence-based analysis of the current experience with CYPHER sirolimus-eluting stents (Cordis Corp., Miami Lakes, FL) and TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stents (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) in a broad spectrum of high-risk and/or complex subsets of patients and lesions, including those with diabetes mellitus, multivessel disease, diffuse disease, very small vessels, lesions in saphenous vein grafts, chronic total occlusions, in-stent restenosis, ostial and bifurcation lesions, unprotected left main disease, and acute myocardial infarction. Emerging data in several of these subsets suggest that drug-eluting stents are safe and effective, and their use may currently be recommended, whereas in other groups of patients and lesions the efficacy and/or safety of drug-eluting stents remains to be determined, thus warranting caution. It is anticipated that penetration of drug-eluting stents will continue to increase, and fewer patients will require surgical revascularization to achieve sustained event-free survival.

Transition from bare metal to drug eluting stenting in contemporary US practice: effect on incidence and predictors of clinically driven target lesion revascularization

BACKGROUND

The performance of drug eluting stents (DES) and impact on every day practice in the USA, where complex, nonselective cases are the rule, remain unknown.

METHODS

The Brigham and Women's Hospital interventional experience in the bare metal stents (BMS) (6/2002 to 2/2003) and after abrupt and near universal adoption of DES (4/2003 to 9/2004) were compared. Demographic, procedural and in-hospital outcomes for all consecutive cases where investigated. Predictors and angiographic characteristics of patients returning for clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) in both eras were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 2,555 DES cases (3,061 lesions, 87.9% Cypher, 12.1% Taxus), 47 underwent TLR during follow-up (68 lesions, 2.2%). Of the 1,731 BMS cases (1,798 lesions), 162 underwent clinically indicated TLR (209 lesions, 11.6%), representing an 81% DES era TLR risk reduction. Multivariate predictors of TLR in the DES era: left main lesion (LM) (odds ratio (OR) 7.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.33-17.53, P<0.01, treatment of restenosis (OR 5.96, CI 3.21-11.08, P<0.01), and diabetes (OR 1.68, CI 0.92-3.04, P=0.07). Predictors of restenosis in the BMS era included additional clinical, lesion, and stent characteristics, while LM lesion was absent. Angiographic patterns of stent restenosis differed in the DES (focal) and BMS (diffuse) era.

CONCLUSIONS

The transition from BMS to DES in the setting of a large USA hospital practice is safe and associated with significant reduction in clinically driven TLR. Treatment of specific lesions types (repeat restenosis, distal LM) and diabetic patients remain suboptimal and warrant further investigation.

Comparison of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents on later frequency of acute myocardial infarction and death

In clinical trials of highly selected patients, drug-eluting stents (DESs) decreased restenosis but not the rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or death. Whether DES use has an affect on the rate of AMI or death in unselected patients is uncertain. Bare metal stents (BMSs) were placed in 1,164 consecutive patients in the year before the introduction of DESs. DESs were subsequently placed in 1,285 consecutive comparable patients at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center. Early and late clinical outcomes were compared. Propensity score analysis was used to adjust outcomes for baseline differences. Patient and procedural characteristics of the 2 groups were similar, with an overall incidence of 72% for acute coronary syndromes (p = NS). At 9 months, target vessel revascularization (2.8% vs 8.6%, p <0.001), AMI (3.7% vs 4.7%, p = 0.257), and death (4.9% vs 7.1%, p = 0.030) were lower in the DES group than in the BMS group. Propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratios for DES versus BMS at 9 months were 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 1.19) for AMI, 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.87) for death, and 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.86) for the combined end point of AMI or death. In conclusion, in this single-center observational study, use of DESs in consecutive unselected patients, most of whom would not have been eligible for inclusion in the randomized trials of DES versus BMS, was associated with lower AMI and death rates than in a comparable group of patients treated with BMSs in mid-term (9-month) follow-up.

Safety of Coronary Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Daily Clinical Practice

Background— The expanding indications for sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) include increasingly complex coronary lesions and populations with clinical profiles markedly different from those of early pivotal controlled studies. The e-Cypher registry monitored the safety and efficacy of SES currently implanted worldwide in daily practice.

Methods and Results— Between April 2002 and September 2005, data were collected on 15 157 patients who underwent implantation of ≥1 SES at 279 medical centers from 41 countries. An independent endpoint review committee adjudicated all reported major adverse cardiovascular events, stent thromboses, and target-vessel revascularizations. Data were managed and analyzed by independent organizations. Predictors of adverse clinical events were identified by regression analysis. The mean age of the sample was 61.7±11.4 years; 77.7% were men, and 28.6% were diabetics. A total of 18 295 lesions were treated (20 503 SES) during the index procedure. The cumulative rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were 1.36% at 30 days, 3.38% at 6 months, and 5.80% at 1 year. The rates of acute, subacute, and late stent thrombosis were 0.13%, 0.56%, and 0.19% of patients, respectively, representing a 12-month actuarial incidence of 0.87%. Insulin-dependent diabetes, acute coronary syndrome at presentation, and advanced age were clinical predictors, whereas TIMI flow grade <3 after the index procedure, treatment of multiple lesions, a prominently calcified or totally occluded target lesion, and multivessel disease were the angiographic or procedural predictors of stent thrombosis at 12 months.

Conclusions— This analysis of 1-year data collected by the e-Cypher registry suggests a high degree of safety of SES, with a rate of stent thrombosis similar to that observed in randomized trials.

Outcome in the real-world of coronary high-risk intervention with drug-eluting stents (ORCHID)—A single-center study comparing Cypher™ sirolimus-eluting with Taxus™ paclitaxel-eluting stents

OBJECTIVE

We present real world experience from a single center registry comparing the 6-month outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected high-risk individuals using either sirolimus-eluting (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).

METHODS/RESULTS

We compared clinical outcome at 6 months follow-up in two cohorts of 156 consecutive patients (total n = 312) who underwent SES (June 2002-February 2003) and PES (march 2003-July 2003) implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Baseline clinical characteristics were well matched. The 6-month target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates were 1.9% (SES) and 2.6% (PES) and MACE rates were similar in the two groups (SES 4.5% vs. PES 3.2%, P = NS). In the PES group, intervention for multivessel disease, bifurcation lesions and in small vessels was more common, and for in-stent restenosis less common, reflecting the impact of drug eluting stents on indications for PCI. The incidence of sub-acute stent thrombosis, related to inadequate antiplatelet therapy in 3 of the 6 cases, was 0.95% with no difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the safety and efficacy of SES and PES in unselected high risk patients undergoing PCI. Clinical outcomes of both stents are equivalent at 6 months with low rates of MACE and TVR. These data provide important complementary information to forthcoming randomized studies.