OBJECTIVES: This observational study evaluated the clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients with aorto-ostial coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) or with bare metal stents (BMSs). BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of SESs for the treatment of aorto-ostial lesions have not been demonstrated. METHODS: We identified 82 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions in 82 aorto-ostial lesions using the SES (32 patients) or BMS (50 patients) and compared the two groups of patients. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death or Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were recorded in-hospital and at a 10-month follow-up. RESULTS: All stents were implanted successfully. There were no statistically significant differences regarding major in-hospital complications between the two groups. At 10-month follow-up, two (6.3%) patients in the SES group and 14 (28%) patients in the BMS group underwent TLR (p = 0.01); MACE were less frequent in the SES group compared to the BMS group (19% vs. 44%, p = 0.02). Angiographic follow-up showed lower binary restenosis rates (11% vs. 51%, p = 0.001) and smaller late loss (0.21 +/- 0.31 mm vs. 2.06 +/- 1.37 mm, p < 0.0001) in the SES group. CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of our study is that, compared to the BMS, implantation of the SES in aorto-ostial lesions appears safe and effective, with no increase in major in-hospital complications and a significant improvement in restenosis and late event rates at 10-month follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: This observational study evaluated the clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients with aorto-ostial coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) or with bare metal stents (BMSs). BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of SESs for the treatment of aorto-ostial lesions have not been demonstrated. METHODS: We identified 82 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions in 82 aorto-ostial lesions using the SES (32 patients) or BMS (50 patients) and compared the two groups of patients. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death or Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were recorded in-hospital and at a 10-month follow-up. RESULTS: All stents were implanted successfully. There were no statistically significant differences regarding major in-hospital complications between the two groups. At 10-month follow-up, two (6.3%) patients in the SES group and 14 (28%) patients in the BMS group underwent TLR (p = 0.01); MACE were less frequent in the SES group compared to the BMS group (19% vs. 44%, p = 0.02). Angiographic follow-up showed lower binary restenosis rates (11% vs. 51%, p = 0.001) and smaller late loss (0.21 +/- 0.31 mm vs. 2.06 +/- 1.37 mm, p < 0.0001) in the SES group. CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of our study is that, compared to the BMS, implantation of the SES in aorto-ostial lesions appears safe and effective, with no increase in major in-hospital complications and a significant improvement in restenosis and late event rates at 10-month follow-up.
Authors: Antonios G Ziakas; Fotios I Economou; Nicholas A Charokopos; Antonios A Pitsis; Despina G Parharidou; Thomas I Papadopoulos; Georgios E Parharidis Journal: Tex Heart Inst J Date: 2010
Authors: Samip Vasaiwala; Helen Vlachos; Faith Selzer; Oscar Marroquin; Suresh Mulukutla; J Dawn Abbott; David O Williams Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 2.778