Bare-metal stents versus drug-eluting stents in large (≥3.5mm) single coronary artery: Angiographic and clinical outcomes at 6 months

SummaryBackgroundAlthough drug-eluting stents (DES) have been shown to dramatically reduce restenosis and improve the rate of event-free survival in large randomized trials, the benefit of DES appears to be limited to restenosis. In large arteries, it is not clear which type of stent is more superior in angiographic and clinical outcomes between DES and bare-metal stents (BMS). We compared the angiographic and clinical outcomes of DES versus BMS in large arteries (≥3.5mm).MethodTwo hundred and forty patients from March 2002 to March 2007 received stents; 196 patients were treated with DES (44.9% sirolimus-eluting stents; 43.9% paclitaxel-eluting stents; 11.2% zotarolimus-eluting stents) and 44 with cobalt–chromium BMS for single de novo lesions in a large vessel. All subjects received aspirin, clopidogrel, and/or cilostazol as the standard antiplatelet regimen. The angiographic and clinical outcomes were evaluated at 6 months.ResultsFor the baseline characteristics, there were no significant differences between the DES and BMS groups. In addition, for the initially implanted stent there was no difference in the length, stent diameter, and lesion site between the two groups. After 6 months, the follow-up angiogram showed that in-stent diameter restenosis and late loss was more common with BMS than DES (39±21% vs. 19±17%, p=0.007; 1.44±0.83mm vs. 0.62±0.58mm, p=0.009, respectively). However, the target-lesion revascularization/target-vessel revascularization, and total major adverse cardiac events showed no significant differences between the groups (5.3% vs. 3.6%, p=0.62; 5.3% vs. 4.6%, p=0.86, respectively).ConclusionThe DES and cobalt–chromium BMS placed in large coronary arteries showed equally favorable 6-month clinical outcomes, although the 6-month angiographic results appeared more favorable in the DES group than in the BMS group

Six-Month Comparison of Coronary Endothelial Dysfunction Associated With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent

ObjectivesThis study was designed to investigate whether endothelial dysfunction is related to drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation at 6 months after stenting.BackgroundCurrent available DES could delay vessel healing and subsequently impair endothelial function.MethodsEndothelial function was estimated at 6-month follow-up in 75 patients (31 men, mean age 62.1 years) with a DES (39 sirolimus-eluting stents [SES], 36 paclitaxel-eluting stents [PES]), and 10 patients with a bare-metal stent (BMS) to the left anterior descending artery, by incremental acetylcholine (Ach) infusion (20 μg/min, 50 μg/min, 100 μg/min) and nitrate (200 μg/min) into the left coronary ostium. Vascular responses were quantitatively measured in arterial segments 5 mm proximal and distal to DES and compared with corresponding segments in the BMS group and midsegments in the left circumflex artery as a reference nonstented artery. All antianginal agents were withheld for at least 72 h before coronary angiography.ResultsGreater vasoconstriction to Ach was observed in both the SES and PES groups than in the BMS group or control segments of left circumflex artery. Vasoconstriction to Ach was more prominent in arterial segments distal to stents in both SES and PES groups compared with those in the BMS group (p < 0.001). The degree of vasoconstriction to Ach was similar between the SES and PES groups. Endothelium-independent vasodilatation to nitrate did not differ significantly between the study groups.ConclusionsAbnormal vasoconstriction to Ach was found in the SES and PES groups, especially in arterial segments distal to DES at 6 months after stenting, which suggests that DES has a potential long-term adverse effect on local coronary endothelial dysfunction

A Prospective, Randomized, 6-Month Comparison of the Coronary Vasomotor Response Associated With a Zotarolimus- Versus a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Differential Recovery of Coronary Endothelial Dysfunction

ObjectivesWe prospectively compared coronary endothelial dysfunction in patients with zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation at 6-month follow-up.BackgroundA ZES has been associated with uniform and rapid healing of the endothelium.MethodsFifty patients were randomly treated with intravascular ultrasound-guided stenting with a single stent to the mid-segment of the left anterior descending artery (20 ZES, 20 SES, and 10 bare-metal stents), and endothelial function was estimated before and after intervention at 6-month follow-up by incremental acetylcholine (Ach) (10, 20, 50, and 100 μg/min) and nitrate (200 μg/min) infusions into the left coronary ostium. The vascular response was quantitatively measured in the 5-mm segments proximal and distal to the stent.ResultsIn the drug-eluting stent groups, more intense vasoconstriction to incremental doses of Ach was observed at 6-month follow-up compared with the responses before stenting. Endothelial function associated with the ZES was more preserved at 6-month follow-up compared with the SES. Vasoconstriction to Ach was more prominent in the distal segments than the proximal segments in both the ZES and SES groups. Endothelium-independent vasodilation to nitrate did not differ significantly among the study groups.ConclusionsVasoconstriction in response to Ach in the peri-stent region was less pronounced in the ZES group than the SES group at 6-month follow-up, which suggests that endothelial function associated with ZES can be more preserved than the SES

Study design and rationale of 'Influence of Cilostazol-based triple anti-platelet therapy on ischemic complication after drug-eluting stent implantation (CILON-T)' study: A multicenter randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of Cilostazol on ischemic vascular complications after drug-eluting stent implantation for coronary heart disease

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Current guidelines recommend dual anti-platelet therapy, aspirin and clopidogrel, for patients treated with drug-eluting stent for coronary heart disease. In a few small trials, addition of cilostazol on dual anti-platelet therapy (triple anti-platelet therapy) showed better late luminal loss. In the real-world unselected patients with coronary heart disease, however, the effect of cilostazol on platelet reactivity and ischemic vascular events after drug-eluting stent implantation has not been tested. It is also controversial whether there is a significant interaction between lipophilic statin and clopidogrel.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>CILON-T trial was a prospective, randomized, open-label, multi-center, near-all-comer trial to demonstrate the superiority of triple anti-platelet therapy to dual anti-platelet therapy in reducing 6 months' major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events, composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization and ischemic stroke. It also tested whether triple anti-platelet therapy is superior to dual anti-platelet therapy in inhibiting platelet reactivity in patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent. Total 960 patients were randomized to receive either dual anti-platelet therapy or triple anti-platelet therapy for 6 months and also, randomly stratified to either lipophilic statin (atorvastatin) or non-lipophilic statin (rosuvastatin) indefinitely. Secondary endpoints included all components of major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events, platelet reactivity as assessed by VerifyNow P2Y12 assay, effect of statin on major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events, bleeding complications, and albumin-to-creatinine ratio to test the nephroprotective effect of cilostazol. Major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events will also be checked at 1, 2, and 3 years to test the 'legacy' effect of triple anti-platelet therapy that was prescribed for only 6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>CILON-T trial will give powerful insight into whether triple anti-platelet therapy is superior to dual anti-platelet therapy in reducing ischemic events and platelet reactivity in the real-world unselected patients treated with drug-eluting stent for coronary heart disease. Also, it will verify the laboratory and clinical significance of drug interaction between lipophilic statin and clopidogrel.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier# NCT00776828).</p

Effect of Calcium Dobesilate in Preventing Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Patients with Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the protective effect of calcium dobesilate against contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) after coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: A total of 130 patients with diabetes and CKD estimated glomerular filtration rate: 30-90 mL/min/1.73m2&nbsp;were enrolled and included in the analysis. They were divided into experimental (n=65) and control groups (n=65). Patients in the experimental group were administered oral calcium dobesilate (500 mg) three times daily for 2 days before and 3 days after the procedure. The serum creatinine (SCr), cystatin C (Cys C), and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) levels were measured before and after the procedure. RESULTS: The mean SCr level at 24h after the procedure was found to be significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group (79.1±19.6 μmol/L&nbsp;vs. 87.0±19.3 μmol/L,&nbsp;p=0.023). However, the Cys C and NGAL levels were not significantly different between the two groups at all measurement time points (all&nbsp;p&gt;0.05). The incidence of CIN defined by the SCr level was significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group (3 [4.6%]&nbsp;vs. 13 [20.0%],&nbsp;p=0.017). However, the incidence of CIN defined by the Cys C level was not statistically different between the two groups (7 [10.8%]&nbsp;vs. 7 [10.8%],&nbsp;p=1.000). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that calcium dobesilate has no preventive effect against CIN in patients with diabetes and CKD