Vessel Size and Outcome After Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent Placement Results From a Large Cohort of Patients Treated With Sirolimus- or Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the influence of vessel size on the outcomes of patients after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.BackgroundThere are no dedicated studies on the influence of vessel size on the outcomes of patients treated with different DES.MethodsThe study population was composed of 2,058 consecutive patients who received sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Patients were grouped into tertiles according to vessel size (<2.41 mm in the lower tertile, 2.41 to 2.84 mm in the middle tertile, and >2.84 mm in the upper tertile). The primary end point was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary end points were binary angiographic restenosis and the composite of death or myocardial infarction.ResultsVessel size did not influence the composite end point of death and myocardial infarction. The TLR rates were higher among patients in the lower tertile (12.1%) as compared with the middle (8.4%) and upper (8.0%) tertiles (p = 0.02). In a multivariate analysis, vessel size emerged an independent predictor of TLR (p = 0.009). The model showed also a significant interaction between DES type and vessel size regarding TLR (p = 0.008). There was a significant difference in TLR rates among patients treated with SESs (8.6%) and PESs (16.4%) in the lower tertile (p = 0.002), but not in the middle and upper tertiles.ConclusionsThe influence of vessel size on restenosis is related to the specific DES used, with SESs providing better outcomes than PESs in small but not in large coronary vessels

Influence of involvement of anterior leaflet versus posterior leaflet on residual regurgitation as assessed by transesophageal echocardiography in patients undergoing valve repair for mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Repair of anterior leaflet prolapse is technically more challenging and this might influence outcomes as compared to the repair of posterior leaflet prolapse in patients undergoing surgical correction of mitral regurgitation. We investigated the association of anterior leaflet prolapse with minor residual mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) who underwent valve repair.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eligible for this study were consecutive patients with severe MR due to MVP, who underwent mitral valve repair with residual MR by postpump transesophageal echocardiography ≤2+ during a 20-month period at Pasquinucci Hospital, Massa. Patients undergoing other cardiovascular surgical interventions were excluded. Two groups were defined according to the involvement of mitral valve leaflets: group 1, consisting of patients with anterior leaflet prolapse (isolated or not); and group 2, consisting of patients with isolated posterior leaflet prolapse.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 70 patients (18 in group 1 and 52 in group 2) were analyzed. Patients in group 2 were younger than those in group 1, but the difference was not significant (P = 0.052). There were no significant differences between the 2 study groups with respect to other variables. The proportion of patients with residual MR 1+/2+ was higher in group 1 than in group 2 (61.1% vs. 32.7%, respectively; P = 0.034). In a logistic regression model, anterior leaflet prolapse was an independent predictor of residual MR 1+/2+ (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.14 to 14.04; P = 0.03).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In our study population, patients with anterior leaflet prolapse had a higher proportion of residual MR 1+/2+ as compared to those with posterior leaflet prolapse after repair of mitral valve.</p

Meta-analysis of randomized trials on drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Aims To compare the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Methods and results We performed a meta-analysis of eight randomized trials comparing drug-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents) with bare-metal stents in 2786 patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. All patients were followed up for a mean of 12.0-24.2 months. Individual data were available for seven trials with 2476 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was the need for reintervention (target lesion revascularization). The primary safety endpoint was stent thrombosis. Other outcomes of interest were death and recurrent myocardial infarction. Drug-eluting stents significantly reduced the risk of reintervention, hazard ratio of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.50), P < 0.001. The overall risk of stent thrombosis: hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.46-1.39), P = 0.43; death: hazard ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.53-1.10), P = 0.14; and recurrent myocardial infarction: hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.48-1.08, P = 0.11) was not significantly different for patients receiving drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents. Conclusion The use of drug-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is safe and improves clinical outcomes by reducing the risk of reintervention compared with bare-metal stent

Authorship: From credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors´ Network

The Editors´ Network of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasised that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new (fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices