OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation exerts an antiproliferative action on a bare metal stent (BMS) placed distally in the same coronary artery. BACKGROUND: Diffusion of sirolimus into flowing coronary blood may cause accumulation of this drug in the coronary bed beyond the distal edge of an SES. METHODS: We analyzed data from 115 consecutive patients with ischemic heart disease who were treated with two overlapping stents without a gap in the same coronary artery for a long de novo lesion. The distal stent was a 2.25 mm BMS in all patients, and the proximal stent was an SES in 73 patients (SES-BMS group) and a BMS in 42 patients (BMS-BMS group). Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) were performed at stent implantation and 8 months later. RESULTS: Clinical and procedural variables were comparable between the two groups. QCA and IVUS showed that the SES-BMS group had less luminal late loss and a lower percent of in-stent volume obstruction in the distal BMS compared with the BMS-BMS group. Furthermore, compared with the BMS-BMS group, the SES-BMS group had less in-stent restenosis (23.3 vs. 54.8%, P < 0.0005) and target lesion revascularization (21.9 vs. 50.0%, P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: SES implantation just proximal to a BMS inhibits neointimal proliferation in the BMS, when both stents are implanted in the same coronary artery to treat a de novo lesion.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation exerts an antiproliferative action on a bare metal stent (BMS) placed distally in the same coronary artery. BACKGROUND: Diffusion of sirolimus into flowing coronary blood may cause accumulation of this drug in the coronary bed beyond the distal edge of an SES. METHODS: We analyzed data from 115 consecutive patients with ischemic heart disease who were treated with two overlapping stents without a gap in the same coronary artery for a long de novo lesion. The distal stent was a 2.25 mm BMS in all patients, and the proximal stent was an SES in 73 patients (SES-BMS group) and a BMS in 42 patients (BMS-BMS group). Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) were performed at stent implantation and 8 months later. RESULTS: Clinical and procedural variables were comparable between the two groups. QCA and IVUS showed that the SES-BMS group had less luminal late loss and a lower percent of in-stent volume obstruction in the distal BMS compared with the BMS-BMS group. Furthermore, compared with the BMS-BMS group, the SES-BMS group had less in-stent restenosis (23.3 vs. 54.8%, P < 0.0005) and target lesion revascularization (21.9 vs. 50.0%, P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS:SES implantation just proximal to a BMS inhibits neointimal proliferation in the BMS, when both stents are implanted in the same coronary artery to treat a de novo lesion.
Authors: Wolfgang Hohenforst-Schmidt; Paul Zarogoulidis; Georgia Pitsiou; Bernd Linsmeier; Drosos Tsavlis; Ioannis Kioumis; Eleni Papadaki; Lutz Freitag; Theodora Tsiouda; J Francis Turner; Robert Browning; Michael Simoff; Nikolaos Sachpekidis; Kosmas Tsakiridis; Bojan Zaric; Lonny Yarmus; Sofia Baka; Grigoris Stratakos; Harald Rittger Journal: J Cancer Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 4.207