Two Cases of Percutaneous Intervention for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Anastomoses With Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Catheters

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) intervention, particularly anastomosis site intervention, is challenging for interventional cardiologists. A paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheter (SeQuent Please) is a recently-introduced device capable of delivering paclitaxel homogeneously into the targeted vessel wall. We herein report our experience with two cases. In the first case, coronary angiography showed significant stenosis at the site of anastomosis between the saphenous vein graft and the left anterior descending artery (LAD). In the second case, coronary angiography showed significant stenosis at the site of anastomosis between the left internal mammary artery and the LAD. We performed percutaneous intervention of these CABG anastomoses using paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheters, and obtained favorable angiographic and clinical outcomes

Sirolimus-eluting stent is superior to paclitaxel-eluting stent for coronary intervention in patients with renal insufficiency: Long-term clinical outcomes

Background: Renal insufficiency (RI) is an independent risk factor for the adverse cardiovascular events. Long-term clinical outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with RI is unknown especially in the era of first generation drug-eluting stents (DES). This study aims at comparing clinical outcomes between sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) based on large scaled registry.Methods: Patients who underwent PCI with DES from January 2004 to December 2009 in the Catholic University of Korea-PCI (COACT) registry were prospectively enrolled. A group of 1,033 patients with RI, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate under 60 mL/min, were analyzed. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) according to the type of stents were compared.Results: Median follow-up period was 810 days (interquartile range: from 361 to 1,354 days). A group of 612 (59.2%) patients were treated with SES and 421 (40.8%) patients were treated with PES. The PES vs. SES group had significantly higher rate of MACE (35.9% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.01). In multivariate Cox hazard regression analysis, PES vs. SES group had significantly higher rate of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–1.64, p = 0.033), particularly pronounced by all-cause death (AHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.008–1.770; p = 0.044). In further analysis with propensity score matching, overall findings were consistent.Conclusions: In patients with RI, PCI using PES provides poorer clinical outcomes than SES in terms of MACE and all-cause death