BACKGROUND: Coronary restenosis is more common in a total coronary occlusion (TCO) than other lesion types after implantation of bare metal stents (BMS). But whereas sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have been shown to improve the outcomes in simple coronary artery lesions, data on their efficacy in complex coronary lesions are scarce. METHODS: We enrolled 127 patients with coronary artery disease and a TCO > or = 15 mm in length to have either SES or BMS implanted after successful recanalization. Outcome measures included the minimal lumen diameter, the late lumen loss, and angiographic restenosis (> 50% diameter stenosis) at 6 months follow-up and the occurrence of target vessel failure during a 7-month period. RESULTS: The patients were well matched in demographic and angiographic baseline characteristics, and 20% had diabetes. The reference vessel was 2.92 mm in mean, and the lesion length was 25.2 mm. At follow-up, patients who received SES had a minimal lumen diameter of 2.49 mm compared with 1.46 mm in those who received BMS (P = .015), 0% versus 38% developed restenosis (P < .001), lumen loss was -0.05 versus 0.99 mm (P < .001), and the target vessel failure rate 5% with SES versus 35% with BMS (P < .001). Stent thrombosis occurred in 1 patient in the BMS group. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of SES is safe, and it markedly reduces angiographic restenosis and the occurrence of adverse events in patients with a TCO.
BACKGROUND:Coronary restenosis is more common in a total coronary occlusion (TCO) than other lesion types after implantation of bare metal stents (BMS). But whereas sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have been shown to improve the outcomes in simple coronary artery lesions, data on their efficacy in complex coronary lesions are scarce. METHODS: We enrolled 127 patients with coronary artery disease and a TCO > or = 15 mm in length to have either SES or BMS implanted after successful recanalization. Outcome measures included the minimal lumen diameter, the late lumen loss, and angiographic restenosis (> 50% diameter stenosis) at 6 months follow-up and the occurrence of target vessel failure during a 7-month period. RESULTS: The patients were well matched in demographic and angiographic baseline characteristics, and 20% had diabetes. The reference vessel was 2.92 mm in mean, and the lesion length was 25.2 mm. At follow-up, patients who received SES had a minimal lumen diameter of 2.49 mm compared with 1.46 mm in those who received BMS (P = .015), 0% versus 38% developed restenosis (P < .001), lumen loss was -0.05 versus 0.99 mm (P < .001), and the target vessel failure rate 5% with SES versus 35% with BMS (P < .001). Stent thrombosis occurred in 1 patient in the BMS group. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of SES is safe, and it markedly reduces angiographic restenosis and the occurrence of adverse events in patients with a TCO.