Treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis: Comparison between drug-eluting balloon versus second-generation drug-eluting stents from a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) versus second-generation DES in the treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis (DES-ISR). BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of DES-ISR remains unclear. Several modes of treatment ranging from plain-old balloon angioplasty to repeated use of DES have yielded disappointing results. DEBs are increasingly been used in restenotic lesions; however, their use in DES-ISR is less established. METHODS: We evaluated all procedures between 2009 and 2011, involving DES-ISR that were treated either with DEB or second-generation DES. The measured end-points during the follow-up period were cardiac-death, target-vessel MI, TLR, TVR, and MACE defined as composite of cardiac-death, TV-MI, and TVR. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-seven patients (302 lesions) with DES-ISR were treated with either DEB (81 patients; 104 lesions) or second-generation DES (166 patients; 198 lesions). The mean age of patients was 66.1 ± 9.4 years. There were higher numbers of patients with diabetes in the DEB group (DEB 47% vs DES 33%; p = 0.03). The mean length of DEB was significantly longer than the DES (35.4 vs 19.8 mm; p < 0.001). During the 12-month follow-up, there were no significant differences in the MACE rates (12.3% vs 8.4%; p = 0.3) and TLR rates (9.9% vs 7.8%; p = 0.6) between DEB and DES, respectively. On the multivariate analysis, use of DEB or DES was not the predictor of MACE (hazard ratio: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.46-1.85; p = 0.6). There were no cases of definite or probable stent thrombosis in either group. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes between DEB and second-generation DES in the treatment of DES-ISR. These results should encourage operators to consider DEB in the treatment of DES-ISR, which offers certain advantages over DES. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Clinical outcomes following target lesion revascularization for bioresorbable scaffold failure.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate clinical outcomes following target lesion revascularization (TLR) for bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) failure in a real world population. BACKGROUND: BRS has become a new option in percutaneous coronary intervention, and may be potentially advantages because of the absence of a permanent metallic cage and the possibility for restoration of vasomotion and endothelial function. However, the requirement for TLR following BRS has been reported, but data on outcomes following reintervention are currently lacking. METHODS: Eighteen patients (20 lesions) who underwent TLR for BRS failure were identified at two high-volume centers in Milan, Italy. Clinical outcomes including all cause death, myocardial infarction, and repeat TLR after TLR for BRS failure were examined. RESULTS: The type of scaffold failure at TLR was classified into focal pattern in 15 lesions, diffuse pattern in two lesions, restenosis at side branch ostium in one lesion and scaffold thrombosis in two lesions. TLR was treated with plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) in two lesions, with drug-coating balloon in three lesions, drug eluting stent implantation in 11 lesions, further BRS implantation in four lesions. During the followup (median: 345 days after TLR), one sudden death and three repeat TLRs were observed. CONCLUSION: In our series, we observed an adverse event rate of 20% of during the followup period following TLR for BRS failure. The optimal treatment option for these patients remains to be determined.

Comparison of early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold and everolimus-eluting stent implantation in a real-world population.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) and cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with mostly complex disease. BACKGROUND: BVS represents the most interesting development in the drug-eluting stent field over recent years with promising results emerging from clinical trials. Available data however on the use of the ABSORB in real-world patients is limited. METHODS: All patients (n = 92) treated with BVS and 1296 patients treated with EES were included in this study. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical characteristics, yielding 92 patient pairs (BVS = 92 patients with 137 lesions and EES = 92 patients with 124 lesions). Clinical outcomes were examined between the 2 groups at 6-months. RESULTS: In both groups, most lesions were classified as either B2 or C (83.9% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.19). Predilatation (97.8% vs. 75.8%, P < 0.01) as well as postdilation (99.3% vs. 77.4%, P < 0.01) was more common in the BVS group. Clinical outcomes at 6-months were similar between the two groups with respect to both target lesion revascularization (3.3% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.41) and major adverse cardiac events (defined as the composite of target vessel revascularization, follow-up myocardial infraction and all-cause death) (3.3% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: ABSORB BVS for the treatment of complex lesions appears to be associated with good procedural and early clinical outcomes similar to those observed with conventional drug-eluting stents. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are required in order to fully assess the role of BVS in the treatment of such lesions and how this compares with that of conventional stents. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Comparison of abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the treatment of coronary bifurcations.

OBJECTIVES: To compare biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting (BES) with abluminal drug elution and durable polymer everolimus-eluting (EES) stents in the treatment of bifurcation lesions. BACKGROUND: The persistence of a polymer in drug-eluting stents (DES) following drug elution has been viewed as a possible culprit for restenosis. DES with biodegradable polymer may thus be associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in high-risk lesions such as those at bifurcation sites. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of consecutive de novo bifurcation lesions treated with EES between October 2006 and October 2011 and BES between February 2008 and March 2012. Study endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), including peri-procedural MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) as well as target lesion revascularization (TLR) separately. RESULTS: We analyzed 236 bifurcation lesions treated with either BES (79 lesions in 69 patients) or EES (157 lesions in 154 patients). Patient and procedural characteristics were broadly similar between the two groups. Estimated MACE and TVR rates at 2-year follow-up were similar between the BES and EES groups (MACE = 13.6 ± 4.6% vs. 14.6 ± 3.2% (P = 0.871); TVR = 6.9 ± 3.5% vs. 8.0 ± 2.7% (P = 0.889). No significant differences were noted between the two groups following propensity-score matched analysis. There was no probable or definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION: BES use in the treatment of bifurcation lesions appears to be associated with good clinical outcomes, comparable to those seen with EES, at long-term follow-up. These results are hypothesis-generating and need to be validated with larger studies.

Outcomes of a novel thin-strut bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with chronic total occlusions: A multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of a novel thin-strut bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as compared with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES). METHODS: We compiled a multicenter registry of patients undergoing CTO recanalization followed by BP-SES or EES implantation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of target-lesion failure (TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-lesion revascularization) at one year. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for case mix. RESULTS: Overall, 413 patients were included (BP-SES n = 242, EES n = 171). PSM resulted in 131 matched pairs, which represented the subject of the main analysis. Antegrade wire escalation was the most successful crossing technique (66% vs. 63%, p = 0.98) in both the BP-SES and EES groups, respectively. Procedural success rates were similar between groups (BP-SES 96% vs. EES 93%, p = 0.24). At one-year follow-up, there were no differences in the primary endpoint of TLF (5.7% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.44), and in cardiac death (0.9% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.32), target-vessel myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 1.9%, p = 0.57), target-lesion revascularization (3.7% vs 3.7%, p = 0.99), or stent thrombosis (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.57), in BP-SES vs. EES, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing CTO PCI with BP-SES suffer a low rate of TLF at one-year follow-up, which is similar to that of subjects treated with durable-polymer EES.

Comparison of paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon and paclitaxel-eluting stent in small coronary vessels in diabetic and nondiabetic patients - results from the BELLO (balloon elution and late loss optimization) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of diabetes on the efficacy of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) for the reduction of restenosis in small vessels according to the presence of diabetes in patients enrolled in the BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) trial. BACKGROUND: Small vessel disease is common in diabetic patients but currently there are no available data regarding DEB in these patients. METHODS: In the BELLO trial, 182 patients with lesions in small vessels were randomized 1:1 to receive DEB or PES. In the current sub analysis, patients were stratified according to the presence of diabetes. The diabetic group consisted of 74 patients (DEB=39, PES=35) and the nondiabetic group of 108 patients (DEB=51, PES=57). Angiographic endpoints examined were in-stent/in-balloon and in-segment late loss and binary restenosis at 6 months. Clinical endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) at 1 year. RESULTS: In-stent/in-balloon late loss was significantly less with DEB as compared to PES in both diabetic (0.05±0.41 vs. 0.30±0.51mm, p=0.033) and nondiabetic patients (0.10±0.36 vs. 0.29±0.40mm, p=0.015). In patients with diabetes, angiographic restenosis and in-segment late loss were significantly lower with DEB as compared to PES (respectively, 6.3% vs. 25.0%; p=0.039 and -0.013±0.39 vs. 0.25±0.53; p=0.023), with no differences noted in nondiabetic patients. The cumulative MACE rate at 1 year was similar between DEB and PES in both the diabetic (13.2% vs. 25%, p=0.194) and nondiabetic groups (11.8% vs. 14.3%, p=0.699). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes does not appear to have a negative impact on the efficacy of DEB in small vessels, which were associated with better angiographic outcomes at 6 months in this complex subgroup. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Impact of sirolimus-eluting and Paclitaxel-eluting stents on outcome in patients with diabetes mellitus and stenting in more than one coronary artery.

Randomized trials have shown that implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) compared with bare metal stents. We compared the impact of SESs and PESs on clinical outcome in medically treated diabetic patients with multivessel stents. In this study, the in-hospital and 9-month clinical outcomes of 260 consecutive diabetic patients who underwent implantation of SESs (147 patients) or PESs (113 patients) were compared. MACEs were defined as death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. The baseline demographic and angiographic characteristics were well matched. An average of 3.0 +/- 1.3 versus 2.8 +/- 1.2 lesions were treated in the SES and PES groups, respectively (p = 0.34), with a mean stented length per patient of 73 +/- 43 versus 61 +/- 36 mm (p = 0.08). No significant difference was observed between the SES and PES groups for in-hospital (6.1% vs 3.5%, p = 0.34) or 9-month MACE (24.5% vs 19.5%, p = 0.34) rates or for subacute (1.4% vs 0.9%, p = 0.72) or late (0.7% vs 0.9%, p = 0.85) stent thrombosis. Insulin-requiring diabetic patients treated with SESs and PESs also had similar demographic and angiographic characteristics and rates of in-hospital (4.7% vs 7.7%, p = 0.57) and 9-month (28.0% vs 38.4%, p = 0.44) MACEs. Insulin-dependent diabetes was the only independent predictor of MACEs (odds ratio 2.68, 95% confidence interval 1.46 to 4.89, p = 0.001). In conclusion, our results demonstrated a relatively high incidence of MACEs in a diabetic population with multivessel disease, despite treatment with drug-eluting stents. In addition, we could not find any clear advantage of 1 type of stent versus the other.

Impact of Angiographic Result After Predilatation on Outcome After Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment of In-Stent Coronary Restenosis.

This study investigates clinical outcomes after drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR) based on the angiographic result achieved after predilatation and before DCB treatment. Among ISR lesions treated with DCBs, 166 lesions with angiography immediately after predilatation were analyzed. The lesions were divided into 2 groups according to angiographic results after predilatation: (1) "adequate" defined as the presence of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow, residual stenosis ≤30%, and no major dissections (n = 98 lesions) or (2) "inadequate" (n = 68 lesions). The reference vessel diameters were larger (2.88 ± 0.39 vs 2.64 ± 0.52 mm, p = 0.001) and lesion lengths shorter in the adequate group (15.4 ± 11.2 vs 19.7 ± 13.9 mm, p = 0.04). During a median follow-up of 808 days, the cumulative target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate was lower in the adequate group (20.3% vs 35.5% at 2 years; p = 0.04). Multivariate analysis indicated that an angiographically inadequate result before DCB treatment was an independent predictor of TLR, even after adjusting for reference vessel diameter and lesion length (hazard ratio 1.99, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 3.87, p = 0.04). In conclusion, angiographic results after lesion preparation appear to be a good predictor of TLR after DCB treatment for ISR.

Procedural and Long-Term Outcomes of Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Occlusions: The BONITO Registry (Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Occlusions).

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) for the percutaneous treatment of chronic total occlusions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a multicenter registry of consecutive chronic total occlusion patients treated with BRS (Absorb; Abbott Vascular) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at 5 institutions. Long-term target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) was the primary end point. Inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Cox regression was used to account for pretreatment differences between the 2 groups. A total of 537 patients (n=153 BRS; n=384 DES) were included. BRS patients were younger and had lower prevalence of comorbidities. Overall mean Japan-Chronic Total Occlusion (J-CTO) score was 1.43±1.16, with no differences between groups. Procedural success was achieved in 99.3% and 96.6% of BRS- and DES-treated patients, respectively (P=0.07). At a median follow-up of 703 days, there were no differences in target-vessel failure between BRS and DES (4.6% versus 7.7%; P=0.21). By adjusted Cox regression analysis, there were still no significant differences between BRS and DES (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-3.72; P=0.34). However, secondary analyses suggested a signal toward higher ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of BRS versus second-generation DES in chronic total occlusion was associated with similar risk of target-vessel failure at long-term follow-up. However, a signal toward increased ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS was observed. Large randomized studies should confirm these findings.

First clinical experience with a paclitaxel derivate-eluting polymer stent system implantation for in-stent restenosis: immediate and long-term clinical and angiographic outcome.

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that antiproliferative drugs such as paclitaxel lower the amount of intimal hyperplasia after stent implantation. We report the first clinical experience of 7-hexanoyltaxol (QP2)-eluting polymer stent system (QuaDS) implantation for in-stent restenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifteen consecutive patients with elective indication to percutaneous coronary intervention for in-stent restenosis were treated with the QuaDS-QP2 stent implantation. The QuaDS-QP2 stent was successfully implanted in all but 2 target lesions. In one lesion, the restenotic segment could not be completely covered by the stent, and in another lesion, a bare metal stent was implanted distally to the QuaDS-QP2 stent. One patient suffered from postprocedural non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (NQWMI). No other adverse events were observed during hospital stay. Six- and 12-month angiographic and clinical follow-up was scheduled for all patients. At 6 months, 3 patients had target lesion revascularization (20%). Two patients had restenosis (13.3%); one experienced restenosis in a gap between 2 drug-eluting stents, and the other had stent occlusion leading to NQWMI. Minimal intimal hyperplasia was observed in all the segments covered by drug-eluting stents (late loss=0.47+/-1.01 mm with a loss index=0.17+/-0.39). At 12 months, 1 patient suffered from NQWMI, and 8 of 13 patients (61.5%) had angiographic restenosis (late loss=1.36+/-0.94 mm with a loss index=0.62+/-0.44). CONCLUSION: This first experience with QuaDS-QP2 stent implantation for in-stent restenosis revealed minimal intimal hyperplasia at the 6-month follow-up. However, the antiproliferative effect was not maintained at the 12-month follow-up, resulting in delayed occurrence of angiographic restenosis.

Treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: immediate and mid-term results.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated clinical outcome after multivessel stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in unselected lesions. BACKGROUND: Safety and effectiveness of multivessel SES implantation is currently unknown. METHODS: Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction [MI], and repeat revascularization) were analyzed at 30 days and at 6 months after multivessel SES implantation. RESULTS: In 155 consecutive patients, 573 SES were implanted in 3.3 +/- 1.3 lesions per patient. At 30 days, the cumulative MACE rate was 10.3%: 7.1% patients developed a non-Q-wave MI, 1.9% developed a Q-wave MI, 0.6% died for non-cardiac reasons, and 0.6% had a repeat revascularization. Clinical follow-up was obtained in all 112 eligible patients treated for 359 lesions at a mean time of 6.5 +/- 2.2 months. The cumulative MACE rate was 22.3%: 3 (2.7%) deaths (1 for cardiac reasons), 4 (3.6%) MIs, target lesion revascularization (TLR) in 16 (14.3%) patients with 24 (6.7%) lesions. Target vessel revascularization was required in 18 (16.1%) patients due to TLR of lesions treated with SES or to disease progression (1.8% of patients). Cox regression analysis revealed total stent length per patient as the most powerful independent predictor of MACE. Overall stent thrombosis occurred in three (1.9%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Multivessel SES implantation can be safely performed on patients with complex coronary artery disease. The need for revascularization increases because of the cumulative effect of TLR on patients with multiple lesions.

Clinical outcome following aleatory implantation of paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents in complex coronary lesions.

We compared the clinical efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) in a contemporary cohort of patients who had complex lesions. We collected data on 9-month outcomes in 529 patients (281 in the PES group and 248 in the SES group) whose de novo lesions were treated with drug-eluting stents. The end point was per-patient in-hospital and follow-up major adverse cardiac events, which were defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, including target lesion revascularization. There were no in-hospital deaths or repeat revascularizations; however, 5.7% of the PES group and 2% of the SES group developed a myocardial infarction (p = 0.04). At a median follow-up of 10.6 months, the rate of major adverse cardiac events was similar between groups (18.1% vs 21%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.25), without any difference in the occurrence of death or myocardial infarction. Diabetes and total stent length were independent predictors of major adverse cardiac events. Propensity analysis confirmed the similarity between devices (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.25). Most restenoses were focal and only 2 patients required surgical revascularization. In conclusion, implantation of drug-eluting stents in complex lesions was associated with favorable results and most patients remained free from surgical revascularization at follow-up. Overall, the 2 available stent platforms had similar performance characteristics.

17-beta-estradiol eluting stent versus phosphorylcholine-coated stent for the treatment of native coronary artery disease.

In this study we randomly compared the estradiol eluting stent (17-beta-E) with phosphorylcholine (PC)-coated stents in native coronary arteries. The incidence of angiographic restenosis was 23% in the 17-beta-E group and 31% in the PC group (p = 0.34). The major adverse cardiovascular event rates were also similar in the 2 groups (17% in the 17-beta-E group vs 22% in the PC group, p = 0.47). The mid-term clinical and angiographic outcomes did not indicate superiority of the 17-beta-E eluting stent over the control PC stent.

Validation of predictors of intraprocedural stent thrombosis in the drug-eluting stent era.

Although predictors of acute intraprocedural stent thrombosis (IPST) in the drug-eluting stent era have been proposed, external validation is lacking. We thus analyzed the occurrence of IPST in the RECIPE study and found that, among 1,320 patients who underwent drug-eluting stent implantation, IPST occurred in 6 (0.5%), with in-hospital major adverse events in 4 (67%). IPST was predicted by number and total length of implanted stents, baseline minimal lumen diameter, and, in a pooled analysis that incorporated values from the present study and a previous study, use of elective glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Such results may provide useful information to guide prevention of this complication.

Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for the Management of Recurrent Multimetal-Layered In-Stent Restenosis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with recurrent drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) treated with a second-generation DES or with a drug-coated balloon (DCB). BACKGROUND: To date, there are no reports of DCB treatment and limited data with regard to the efficacy of further DES implantation for recurrent ISR. METHODS: Between January 2008 and December 2013, 171 lesions were assessed for eligibility (82 lesions in the second-generation DES group and 89 lesions in the DCB group). RESULTS: Acute gain was greater in the second-generation DES group (second-generation DES, 2.09 ± 0.53 mm vs. DCBs, 1.60 ± 0.62 mm, p < 0.001). The rates of major adverse cardiac events were comparable (at 1 year, DES 14.0% vs. DCBs 12.3%; at 2 years, DES 28.8% vs. DCBs 43.5%, p = 0.21). Major adverse cardiac event rates were mainly driven by target lesion revascularization (at 1 year, DES 12.5% vs. DCBs 10.9%; at 2 years, DES 27.7% vs. DCBs 38.3%; p = 0.40). Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (1 patient in each group). Multivariable analysis revealed ISR recurrence within 1 year (hazard ratio: 2.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 5.18, p = 0.02) and lesion length (per 10-mm increase) (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.32, p = 0.049) to be independent predictors of TLR. CONCLUSIONS: The results after both treatments were equivalent. ISR recurrence within 1 year of the first reintervention and lesion length were independent predictors of future target lesion revascularization. Larger studies are required to confirm the late (>1 year) differences with regard to clinical outcomes.

Comparison of diamond-like carbon-coated stents versus uncoated stainless steel stents in coronary artery disease.

Stainless steel (SS) and carbon-coated (CC) stents were randomly compared in 347 patients (520 lesions). No differences were observed in in-hospital major adverse cardiac events: 2.8% in the CC group and 4.5% in the SS group (p = 0.286). The 6-month follow-up showed similar rates of binary restenosis (31.8% in the CC group vs 35.9% in the SS group; p = 0.448) and of cumulative major adverse cardiac events (30.5% in the CC group vs 32.7% in the SS group; p = 0.675). In unselected patients and lesions, carbon coating does not provide significant improvements over SS stents with the same design.

The role of drug-eluting balloons alone or in combination with drug-eluting stents in the treatment of de novo diffuse coronary disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the role of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) alone or in combination with drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of diffuse de novo coronary artery disease (CAD) (>25 mm). BACKGROUND: The use of DEB in diffuse CAD, either alone or in combination with DES, offers an alternative to stenting alone. Data regarding DEB in this context are limited. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all patients treated with DEB for diffuse CAD between June 2009 and October 2012. Endpoints analyzed were major adverse cardiac events, defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR), as well as TVR and target lesion revascularization separately. Results were compared with those obtained from a cohort of patients with similar characteristics treated with DES alone. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients (93 lesions) were treated with DEB ± DES, and 93 patients with DES alone (93 lesions). A high proportion of patients were diabetic (46.4% vs. 44.1%, p = 0.77). Of the DEB-treated lesions, 56.0% were treated with DEB alone, 7.4% with DEB and DES as bail out, and 36.6% with DES and DEB as part of a hybrid approach for very long disease. Outcome rates with DEB ± DES were comparable to those with DES alone at 2-year follow-up (major adverse cardiac events = 20.8% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.74; TVR = 14.8% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.44; target lesion revascularization = 9.6% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: DEB may have a role in the treatment of diffuse de novo CAD, either alone in smaller vessels or in combination with DES in very long disease.

Treating chronic total occlusions using subintimal tracking and reentry: the STAR technique.

Successful recanalization of coronary total occlusions (CTOs) remains an area where improvements are needed. We propose an approach similar to the one utilized in treating some peripheral artery occlusions and aimed to create a subintimal dissection with distal reentry. A 0.014' hydrophilic wire with a J-configuration is utilized for this purpose. We applied this technique to CTO of native coronaries in 31 patients where previous attempts failed in 21 of them (67%). The right coronary artery (RCA) was the index vessel in 87% of patients. Recanalization of the vessel and of most of distal branches was achieved in 21 patients; patency of at least one major distal branch was achieved in 9 patients. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) were implanted in 53% of patients. Three patients had intraprocedural vessel perforation without consequences. Five patients (16%) had in-hospital non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. No other adverse events occurred at a mean follow-up of 5.1 +/- 3.7 months except for one noncardiac death. Angiographic follow-up was performed in 21 (67%) patients and 53% of them developed restenosis. Reintervention on the target vessel was performed in 11 patients (52%). Complete success with the procedure was originally obtained in 8 of the 10 patients who did not develop restenosis and in 8 of them DESs were originally implanted. This technique appears a promising approach to recanalize difficult total occlusions, particularly the ones localize on the RCA, which has the most important side branches located distally.