Safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in elderly patients with small coronary vessel disease.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) are more effective than bare-metal stents (BMS) in small coronary vessel disease. Whether this is true in elderly patients, it is unclear, as frailty and a high rate of comorbidities could increase the rate of DES-related complications. AIMS: To assess procedural and long-term clinical outcomes of elderly patients with small vessel disease treated with DES or BMS. METHODS: Consecutive elderly patients (≥ 75 years old) treated with stenting of native small coronary arteries (reference vessel diameter and implanted stent<3mm) were recruited during 2004-2008. Procedural and long-term clinical outcomes were compared between patients treated with BMS and DES. Propensity score-adjusted logistic regression analysis was performed to account for potential selection bias. RESULTS: Among 293 patients (175 BMS, 118 DES), peri-procedural myocardial infarction (12 [7%] vs. 5 [4%]; P=0.35) and blood transfusions (3 [2%] vs. 0; P=0.08) were not significantly different between the BMS and DES groups. Clinical follow-up (96% of patients, median [interquartile range] follow-up 3.5 [2.4] years) showed significantly lower adjusted major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.72; P=0.002) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.76; P=0.009) in the DES group. No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective, non-randomized analysis of the treatment of small vessel disease in elderly patients, DES were as safe and more effective than BMS with a significant reduction in TVR.

Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with small-vessel disease.

BACKGROUND: Small coronary vessels supply small myocardial territories. The clinical significance of small-vessel stenoses is therefore questionable. Moreover, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonfunctionally significant lesions does not improve clinical outcome and might be associated with potential procedural or stent related risks. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI in the treatment of small coronary vessel lesions as compared with an angio-guided PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2004 to December 2008, all patients treated with PCI for stable or unstable angina in small native coronary vessels (reference vessel diameter and stent size <3 mm) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into angio-guided and an FFR-guided PCI groups. A total of 717 patients were enrolled (495 angio-guided, 222 FFR-guided). End points were death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), combined death or nonfatal MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and procedure costs. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as death, nonfatal MI, and TVR. Clinical follow-up was obtained in 97.5% (median follow-up: 3.3 [from 0.01-5] years) of the patients. Seventy-eight patients (35%) had a significant FFR (<0.80) and underwent PCI. Using a propensity score adjusted Cox analysis, patients treated with FFR-guided PCI had significantly lower combined death or nonfatal MI (hazard ratio [HR], 0.413; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.227-0.750; P=0.004), nonfatal MI (HR, 0.063; 95% CI, 0.009-0.462; P=0.007), TVR (HR, 0.517; 95% CI, 0.323-0.826; P=0.006), and MACE (HR, 0.458; 95% CI, 0.310-0.679; P<0.001). No difference was observed in mortality alone (HR, 0.684; 95% CI, 0.355-1.316; P=0.255). Procedure costs were also reduced in the FFR guided strategy (3253±102 Euros versus 4714±37 Euros, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: FFR-guided PCI of small coronary arteries is safe and results in better clinical outcomes when compared with an angio-guided PCI.