Comparison of paclitaxal vs. sirolimus eluting stents with bio-degradable polymer for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: subgroup analysis from DKCRUSH-I and DKCRUSH-II studies / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>The difference in clinical outcome between paclitaxal-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents with bio-degradable polymer (SES-BDP) for bifurcation lesions remains unclear. The present study aimed to investigate the one-year clinical outcome after DK crush stenting using PES (Taxus(TM)) vs. SES-BDP (Excel(TM)) from our database.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A total of 275 patients (90 from the DKCRUSH-I and 185 from the DKCRUSH-II study) were studied. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months; including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). The rate of binary restenosis and stent thrombosis served as secondary endpoints.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>At follow-up, minimal luminal diameter (MLD) in the Taxus group was (2.11 ± 0.66) mm, with resultant increased target lesion revascularization (TLR) 12.2% and TVR 14.4%, significantly different from the Excel group; (2.47 ± 0.56) mm, P < 0.001, 3.2%, P = 0.006, 4.9%, P = 0.019, respectively. As a result there was a significant difference in MACE between the Taxus (20.0%) and Excel (10.3%, P = 0.038) groups. Overall stent thrombosis was monitored in 11 patients (4.0%), with five in the Excel group (2.7%) and six in the Taxus group (6.7%). All stent thrombosis in the Excel group was classified as early, and all were defined as late in the Taxus group.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The Excel stent had lower rate of stent thrombosis, TLR, TVR, and composite MACE at 12-month after an indexed stenting procedure, compared to the Taxus stent.</p>

Clinical outcome after management of unprotected left main in-stent restenosis after bare metal or drug-eluting stents / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Implantation of either bare metal stent (BMS) or drug-eluting stent (DES) has been used in every day practice for patients with unprotected left main stenosis (UPLMS). There are still a lack of data regarding the subsequent results of UPLMS in-stent restenosis (ISR). The present study aimed at determining the clinical outcome of UPLMS ISR patients after implantation of either BMS or DES.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Patients with UPLMS ISR after stenting were included. The primary endpoint was the cumulative major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR).</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>UPLMS ISR rate was 14.8% (n = 73, 15.7% after BMS, 14.5% for DES) after average of (3.89 +/- 2.01) years (range from 1 to 10.5 years) follow-up. Angiographic follow-up between 6 - 8 months was available in 85.3%. Of these, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was used in 62 (84.9%) patients, with medicine only in 9 (12.4%) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in 2 (2.7%). Most repeat PCI patients were with unstable angina (87.0%), and had decreased left ventricular ejection fraction ((42.58 +/- 5.12)%), fewer focal/ostial left circumflex branch (LCX) lesions, in relative to medicine only group. After (31.9 +/- 23.3) months, the MACE, MI, TVR and cardiac death were 31.5%, 1.4%, 24.1% and 8.2%, respectively. Definite and possible stent thrombosis occurred in 1 (1.4%) patient.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Medical therapy for asymptomatic isolated ostial LCX was safe. Repeat PCI for UPLMS ISR was associated with acceptable early and short-term clinical outcome. Further study was needed to elucidate the role of CABG in treating UPLMS ISR.</p>