Multivessel stenting in patients with NSTE-ACS and multivessel disease using a clinical decision of treatment is associated with lower rate of MACE driven by lower repeat revascularization, compared with culprit-vessel stenting, without difference in rates of death or MI.
Nondiabetic patients showed a significant positive vascular remodeling in proximal and distal edges of sirolimus analogous-eluting stent. This vascular mechanism was not observed in diabetic patients. Although different vascular responses were observed, restenosis rates were equivalent between the 2 groups at 6-month follow-up.
Despite the undeniable contribution of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) to assess drug-eluting stent (DES) effectiveness, the way these image modalities correlate to each other and to target-lesion revascularization (TLR) after PCI, is yet to be established. Thus we sought to evaluate whether there is an acceptable correlation between QCA and IVUS after DES implantation. We analyzed 204 pts treated with DES: Zotarolimus-(126), Sirolimus-(57), and Biolimus (31) with baseline and follow-up QCA and IVUS. The correlation between QCA lumen loss (LL) and intimal hyperplasia (IH) volume obstruction by IVUS was assessed by multiple regression analysis. Two QCA parameters (in-segment diameter stenosis and insegment LL) and one IVUS variable (in-stent volume of IH) were evaluated as quantitative surrogates of 6 month TLR. The receiver operating characteristic method with c-statistics was used to assess the ability of each surrogate endpoint to predict TLR. QCA LL correlated positively with IVUS IH volume of obstruction (r = 0.69; CI95% 0.61-0.75: P \ 0.0001), independent of DES type. The 2 QCA parameters were superior to the IVUS parameter as surrogates for TLR. Of note, QCA LL (c = 0.99) correlated best with TLR, even better than percent DS. In the DES era there is a good correlation between QCA measured LL and IVUS IH volume and therefore can be used as a surrogate of DES efficacy.
SUMMARY
Comparative Analysis of the Overlapping Segment of Sirolimus-versus Paclitaxel-Eluting StentsIntroduction: To treat long complex coronary obstructions, total lesion coverage is recommended. When more than one stent is deployed an overlap segment is mandatory to avoid uncovered gaps between stents. There is no data comparing Sirolimus-(SES) versus Paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at overlapping segments in regards to neointimal inhibition or toxic effects on the vessel wall. Objective: To evaluate, by means of serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), the efficacy in reducing neointimal proliferation and the vessel changes in the overlapping segment comparing these two drug-eluting stents. Method: Fifty-two patients with 72 de novo coronary lesions were randomized for SES or PES. Fourteen patients in the SES Group and twelve in the PES Group had overlapping segments. Quantitative coronary angiography and IVUS were performed at the time of the procedure and at 8 months follow-up. Results: No significant baseline differences were identified between the 2 groups. The mean stent/lesion ratios were similar (1.74 ± 0.89 for SES vs. 2.01 ± 0.92 for PES; p= 0.47). SES and PES were comparable in reducing neointima hyperplasia in the overlapping zone (neointima volume 2.24 ± 0.9 mm 3 after SES vs. 2.53 ± 1.5 mm 3 after PES; p=0.1 and % neointima obstruction of 18.15 ± 8.5% after SES vs. 26.7 ± 16.8% after PES; p=0.1). There was no positive remodeling in the overlapping segment for both groups (expansion ratio 0.74 ± 0.18 vs. 0.76 ± 0.14, respectively; p=0.74). Other IVUS volumetric measurements were also equivalent between the two cohorts. Conclusion: In our preliminary experience, overlapping of DESs proved
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.