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

Predictors of survival in prostate cancer patients with bone metastasis and extremely high prostate-specific antigen levels

Purpose: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a surrogate marker of disease progression; however, its predictive ability in the extreme ranges is unknown. We determined the predictors of survival in patients with bone metastatic prostate cancer (BMPCa) and with extremely high PSA levels. Methods: Treatment-naïve patients (n = 248) diagnosed with BMPCa between December 2002 and June 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinicopathological features at diagnosis, namely age, body mass index, serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and PSA levels, PSA nadir, time to PSA nadir and its maintenance period, PSA declining velocity, Gleason grade, clinical T stage, pain score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS), and the number of bone metastases were assessed. The patients were stratified according to PSA ranges of <20 ng/mL, 20–100 ng/mL, 100–1000 ng/mL, and 1000–10,000 ng/mL. Study endpoints were castration-resistant PCa (CRPC)-free survival and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Results: Patients with higher PSA and ALP levels showed more bone lesions (P < 0.001). During the follow-up period (median, 39.9 months; interquartile range, 21.5–65.9 months), there were no differences between the groups in terms of the survival endpoints. High ALP levels, shorter time to PSA nadir, and pain were associated with an increased risk of progression to CRPC, and high ALP levels, ECOG PS ≥ 1, and higher PSA nadir independently predicted CSS. Conclusions: PSA response to androgen deprivation therapy and serum ALP are reliable predictors of survival in patients with BMPCa presenting with extremely high PSA levels. These patients should not be deterred from active treatment based on baseline PSA values