OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term outcomes after drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation in small coronary vessels. BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been reported to improve both the angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare metal stents even in 'real world' settings. Currently, no data is available on long-term outcomes after DES implantation in small vessels. METHODS: Since April 2002, our institution has implanted DES, either SES or PES, as a default strategy in all patients irrespective of their clinical presentation. Between October 2002 and September 2003, 197 consecutive patients were enrolled: 107 consecutive patients received at least one 2.25-mm SES (SES group) and 90 consecutive patients received at least one 2.25-mm PES (PES group). RESULTS: The two cohorts presented with high-risk characteristics. At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the SES group was significantly lower than that in the PES group (10.3% vs. 23.3%, P=0.02). There were two subacute angiographic stent thromboses in the PES group and none in the SES group. By multivariate analysis, PES utilization (HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.07-5.26), presentation with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (HR 3.34, 95% CI 1.44-7.70) and multi-vessel disease (MVD) (HR 3.91, 95% CI 1.27-12.0) were identified as independent predictors of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected population treated for small vessel disease, SES were associated with significantly better 2-year clinical outcomes than PES. The use of PES and the presentation with ACS and MVD were identified as independent predictors of MACE. Copyright (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term outcomes after drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation in small coronary vessels. BACKGROUND:Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been reported to improve both the angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare metal stents even in 'real world' settings. Currently, no data is available on long-term outcomes after DES implantation in small vessels. METHODS: Since April 2002, our institution has implanted DES, either SES or PES, as a default strategy in all patients irrespective of their clinical presentation. Between October 2002 and September 2003, 197 consecutive patients were enrolled: 107 consecutive patients received at least one 2.25-mm SES (SES group) and 90 consecutive patients received at least one 2.25-mm PES (PES group). RESULTS: The two cohorts presented with high-risk characteristics. At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the SES group was significantly lower than that in the PES group (10.3% vs. 23.3%, P=0.02). There were two subacute angiographic stent thromboses in the PES group and none in the SES group. By multivariate analysis, PES utilization (HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.07-5.26), presentation with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (HR 3.34, 95% CI 1.44-7.70) and multi-vessel disease (MVD) (HR 3.91, 95% CI 1.27-12.0) were identified as independent predictors of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected population treated for small vessel disease, SES were associated with significantly better 2-year clinical outcomes than PES. The use of PES and the presentation with ACS and MVD were identified as independent predictors of MACE. Copyright (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Martin Unverdorben; Franz X Kleber; Hubertus Heuer; Hans-Reiner Figulla; Christian Vallbracht; Matthias Leschke; Bodo Cremers; Stefan Hardt; Michael Buerke; Hanns Ackermann; Michael Boxberger; Ralf Degenhardt; Bruno Scheller Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 5.460