Increased plasma C-reactive protein level predicts rapid progression of non-target atherosclerotic lesions in patients with stable angina after stenting.

BACKGROUND: Although the role of C-reactive protein (CRP) in predicting rapid progression of atherosclerotic lesions has been intensively studied in unstable coronary artery disease, the data from patients with stable angina (SA) are largely absent. The present study evaluated a middle-size patient cohort who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation and follow-up coronary angiography (CAG) and tested the hypothesis that increased plasma level of high-sensitive CRP would indicate rapid progression of de novo non-target coronary artery lesions in Chinese patients with SA. METHODS: The study population comprised of 311 consecutive patients with chronic SA who underwent coronary stent implantation on initial admission and angiographic follow-up ((8.5 ± 1.2) months). Rapid angiographic progression of non-target lesion was angiographically assessed and the patients were classified into two groups according to whether the progression existed or not. The relation of plasma CRP levels to the progression of atherosclerosis was investigated. RESULTS: Baseline demographic, clinical, and angiographic data were similar in patients with and without progression. Rapid angiographic progression of non-target lesions occurred in 136 patients (43.7%) at follow-up: 77 had a ≥ 10% diameter reduction of pre-existing stenosis ≥ 50%, 26 had a ≥ 30% diameter reduction of a pre-existing stenosis < 50%, 64 developed a new lesion ≥ 30% in a previously normal segment, and 4 had progression of a lesion to total occlusion. Progression of non-target lesions was not associated with target lesion restenosis formation. High-sensitive CRP levels were markedly higher in progression patients than in non-progression ones (1.60 (0.80 - 3.46) mg/L vs. 0.96 (0.55 - 1.87) mg/L, P < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that plasma CRP independently predicted rapid angiographic progression of non-target lesions (P = 0.001). High-sensitive CRP levels above 1.32 mg/L (the cutoff value) were associated with a 3.5-fold increase in the risk of developing rapid atherosclerotic progression (OR = 3.497, 95%CI 2.045 - 5.980). CONCLUSION: The data confirmed and extended previous studies that plasma CRP might independently predict non-target lesion progression in patients with SA after stent implantation.

Treatment of mild-moderate calcified coronary lesions with sirolimus-eluting stent: real world data from a single center.

BACKGROUND: Calcified coronary lesions have commonly been considered as a challenge for interventional cardiologists, and few previous studies of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) for calcified lesion have been limited by small sample size. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of SES implantation for the treatment of calcified lesions in a large Chinese cohort of real world practice. METHODS: A total of 956 consecutive patients who successfully received SES placement were enrolled in this study, and were divided into the two groups according to whether the mild-moderate calcified lesion treated with SES exists or not: noncalcified group (n = 637) and calcified group (n = 319). Lesions treated with SES were subjected to quantitative coronary angiography immediately and 8 months after stenting. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics including clinical, demographic or angiographic data were well balanced between the noncalcified and calcified groups. In the angiographic follow-up at 8 months, the in-stent restenosis and in-segment restenosis rates were similar in both the groups (in-stent restenosis: 3.8 vs. 4.0%, P>0.05; in-segment restenosis: 8.5 vs. 9.7%, P>0.05). The target lesion revascularization was not different between the two groups (5.2 vs. 6.8%; P>0.05). In addition, the in-stent late loss and overall thrombosis rate were also similar in both the groups (0.17+/-0.41 vs. 0.18+/-0.35 mm and 1.8 vs. 1.8%, P>0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although stenting of the calcified lesion was hard, successful treatment with SES for mild-moderate calcified lesions was conferred to similar favorable results compared with noncalcified lesions in patients with coronary artery disease.

Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of ostial coronary lesions: comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent with paclitaxel-eluting stent.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of ostial coronary lesions represents a challenge for interventional cardiologists. The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) has been demonstrated as improving the outcomes of patients in a few studies. It is not known, however, which DES, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), is superior for the treatment of ostial lesions. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 95 consecutive patients with de-novo ostial lesions underwent coronary SES (n=47, lesions=48) or PES implantation (n=45, lesions=47), and quantitative coronary analysis was performed at the time of stent implantation and subsequently at 8 months post stenting. Ostial lesion was defined as > or =50% diameter stenosis rising within 3 mm of either left anterior descending coronary artery or left circumflex artery or right coronary artery measured by quantitative coronary analysis. Major adverse cardiac events including death, thrombosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. At 8 months clinical and angiographic follow-up, overall major adverse cardiac events and target lesion revascularization rates were similar in both groups (6.4 vs. 11.2%, P=0.184; 4.3 vs. 8.9%, P=0.170, respectively). The in-stent and in-segment restenosis were, however, significantly higher in PES group compared with SES group (15.5 vs. 0%, P=0.001; 22.2 vs. 4.3%, P=0.003). Similarly, the late loss in both in-stent and in-segment was significantly higher in the PES group than in SES group (0.65+ or -0.67 vs. 0.16+ or -0.18 mm; 0.68+ or -0.65 vs. 0.15+ or -0.12 mm; P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this small sample-size, nonrandomized, and nonprospective study, the data indicated that implantation of DES appears safe and effective for the treatment of patients with de-novo ostial coronary lesions, but SES implantation showed more favorable results in respect of restenosis compared with PES implantation.

Effects of sirolimus-eluting stent on calcified coronary lesions.

BACKGROUND: Calcified coronary lesions carry the risk of suboptimal stent expansion, subsequently leading to restenosis. The effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for the treatment of calcified lesion has not been fully investigated. In the present study, therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of SES implantation for the treatment of calcified coronary lesions. METHODS: A total of 333 consecutive patients with 453 lesions were enrolled in this study. They were divided into two groups according to whether the lesion treated with SES was calcified or not; no calcification group (n = 264) and calcification group (n = 189). Lesions treated with SES were subjected to quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) immediately and 8 months following stenting. RESULTS: Baseline clinical, demographic or angiographic characteristics were well balanced in both groups. Angiographic follow-up at 8 months, the in-stent restenosis and in-segment restenosis rates were not significantly different between the two groups; in-stent restenosis: 3.8% vs 4.2%; P = 0.081; in-segment restenosis: 8.7% vs 10.6%, P = 0.503. The target lesion revascularization (TLR) was also not significantly different between the two groups; 4.9% vs 6.9%, P = 0.378. In addition, the in-stent late loss was similar in both groups; (0.16 +/- 0.40) mm vs (0.17 +/- 0.33) mm, P > 0.05. Meantime, overall thrombosis rates were also similar in both groups; 1.6% vs 1.6%, P > 0.05. CONCLUSION: Although calcified coronary lesion was hard to stent, successful percutaneous coronary intervention with SES stenting for calcified lesions was conferred by the similar favorable results that were seen when comparing non-calcified and calcified coronary lesions.

Is there delayed restenosis in patients with coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stent?

BACKGROUND: Although long-term follow-up after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation shows a sustained clinical benefit in several randomized and registered trials, little is known about the pattern of neointimal growth beyond the first 6 to 9 months. In this study, we therefore evaluated the possible delayed restenosis in patients with coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stent. METHODS: A total of consecutive 333 patients with 453 lesions were enrolled in this study (among 782 consecutive patients with 1023 lesions). Lesions were subjected to follow-up by quantitative coronary angiography, and patients were divided into two groups according to the time of follow-up by quantitative coronary angiography: early group (< or =270 days, n=270 with 369 lesions) and late group (>270 days, n=63 with 84 lesions). Binary restenosis was defined as stenosis of more than 50% of the lumen diameter in the target lesion. RESULTS: Baseline clinical, demographic or angiographic characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. The in-stent restenosis rate was not significant between the early group and the late group (3.5 vs. 6.0%; P>0.05). The late loss and target lesion revascularization appeared higher in late group but there were no significant differences (0.15+/-0.38 mm vs. 0.24+/-0.44 mm; and 4.9 vs. 9.5%, P>0.05, respectively). Similarly, overall thrombosis rate was also same in both groups. In-segment restenosis was, however, higher in late group compared with that in early group (7.9 vs. 16.7%, P=0.013). CONCLUSION: In this unrestricted population, the beneficial effects of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation extend out more than 1 year in real world practice, that has been confirmed by the results of the large randomized clinical trials. The late in-segment restenosis could, however, be found, suggesting that a prolonged clinical and angiographic surveillance in this subset of patients seems to be warranted.

A comparison of angiographic and clinical outcomes after sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of in-stent restenosis.

BACKGROUND: In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenge for interventional cardiologists. Some data suggest that drug-eluting stents (DES) represent a promising new option for the treatment of patients with ISR. Currently, 2 DES platforms are available [sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES)], but the superiority of either approach for treating ISR has not been convincingly demonstrated. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively compare angiographic and clinical outcomes after treatment of ISR with SES or PES in a series of consecutive patients with ISR. METHODS: A total of 745 consecutive patients were treated with bare metal stents from April 12, 2004 to December 31, 2004 in our center. Of these, clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) was performed in 54 ISR from 54 patients at 7 months. Of the 54 patients with ISR, 36 received SES and 18 received PES. Follow-up included angiography and assessment of clinical outcome, both performed 7 months after DES implantation. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline clinical data (including medication usage and lesion characteristics) between the two groups. Except for overlapping of multiple stents, procedural parameters were also similar in both groups. Seven-month angiographic follow-up showed that the binary restenosis rate was higher in patients treated with PES than that in patients treated with SES (in-stent binary restenosis: 27.8% vs 5.6%, P < 0.023; In-segment binary restenosis: 44.4% vs 13.9%, P < 0.014). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) occurring during hospitalization or during the follow-up period including thrombosis and TLR was similar in both groups (22.2% vs 8.3%, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this small sample size, retrospective, single-center study showed that SES might be superior to PES in treating ISR because of lower 7-month restenosis rates (both in-stent and in-segment binary restenosis) with no increased incidence of MACE.

Comparison of short- and mid-term outcomes between CYPHER and TAXUS stents in patients with complex lesions of the coronary arteries.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stent (DES) could obviously reduce in-stent restenosis, which has been proved by international multi-center clinical trials. However, the types of the lesions for stenting were highly selected in these trials. Up to now, there has been no large scale study on the effect of DES in treating complex lesions in real world. Although REALITY trial was just reported during American College of Cardiology Congress 2005, the entry criteria for lesions were limited to one or two de novo lesions. This study was conducted to compare the short- and mid-term clinical outcomes between sirolimus-eluting stent (CYPHER stent) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (TAXUS stent) in patients with complex lesion. METHODS: This is a retrospective study. From April 2002 to June 2004, a total of 1061 patients were treated with DES in Fu Wai Hospital, of which, 611 patients (642 lesions with 698 CYPHER stents) were in CYPHER group, and 450 patients (534 lesions with 600 TAXUS stents) were in TAXUS group. There was no significant difference in clinical data and lesion types between CYPHER group and TAXUS group. RESULTS: Success rates of stent implantation were 99.2% and 98.8% in CYPHER and TAXUS stent groups respectively. The major adverse cardiac events (MACE) during in-hospital and 6-8-month follow-up were 0.7% and 2.3% in CYPHER stent group versus 1.3% and 3.2% in TAXUS stent group. There was no significant difference in MACE rate between these two groups. Restenosis rate was a little higher in TAXUS stent group than that in CYPHER stent group (14.0% vs 7.3%), but there was no significant difference. The incidence of acute occlusion of side branch after implanting DES in main vessel was 6.9% in CYPHER group and 11.9% in TAXUS group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CYPHER and TAXUS DES were safe and effective in patients with complex lesion. Clinical outcomes of CYPHER stent were better than TAXUS stent in bifurcation lesions. There was an increasing tendency in restenosis rate and late thrombosis in TAXUS group as compared with that of CYPHER group.