Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with and without diabetes mellitus: a single-center study.

BACKGROUND: To improve outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remain an unmet clinical need. The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of G2-DESs and BP-DESs in patients with and without DM in a single center in China. METHODS: A total of 7666 consecutive patients who exclusively had G2-DES or BP-DES implantation throughout 2013 in our center were studied. The primary efficacy endpoint was any target lesion revascularization (TLR), whereas the primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: G2-DESs had a similar occurrence of death, non-fatal MI, TLR, stroke, and stent thrombosis compared with BP-DESs in patients with DM (all P > 0.05). The incidence of TVR and TLR was lower for G2-DESs than for BP-DESs in patients without DM (3.2% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.002; 2.2% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analysis also showed better TVR- and TLR-free survival rates for G2-DESs than for BP-DESs in patients without DM. Multivariate analysis showed that a BP-DES was an independent risk factor for TLR (hazard ratio 1.963, 95% confidence interval 1.390-2.772, P < 0.001) in patients without DM, which was not predictive of other components of major adverse cardiac events (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: G2-DESs have better efficacy, represented by a reduced risk of TLR, and similar safety compared with BP-DESs in patients without DM. G2-DESs have similar efficacy and safety compared with BP-DESs in patients with DM at 2-year follow-up.

Immediate and long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: comparison with bare-metal stent implantation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease remain to be established in different clinical settings. METHODS: Elective DES implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis was performed in 220 patients at the Fu Wai Hospital, China, from April 2003 to February 2006. Data derived from the latter group were compared with those derived from 224 patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMSs) before March 2003 in a Chinese registry of unprotected LMCA stenting. RESULTS: Compared with the historical BMS control group, the DES group had more multivessel disease and underwent more bifurcation stenting. The inhospital major adverse cardiac events were significantly higher in the DES than in the BMS recipients (4.1% vs 0.9%, P = .030) because of more complex lesions and procedures in the DES group. During the 15-month mean follow-up period, cumulative cardiac death (0.5% vs 4.9%, P = .004), target-vessel revascularization (5.9% vs 11.6%, P = .034), and major adverse cardiac event (9.5% vs 16.5%, P = .029) rates were significantly lower in the DES than in the BMS group. There was no significant difference in clinical efficacy between sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. Angiographic follow-up was performed in 46.4% of DES and 45.7% of BMS recipients, respectively; and the binary restenosis rate was significantly lower in the DES versus the BMS control group (16.7% vs 31.4%, P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this comparison with a historical control, DES implantation for unprotected LMCA appears safe in selected patients and might be more effective in preventing major adverse cardiac events compared with BMS implantation over a mean follow-up period of 15 months.

A comparison of clinical and angiographic outcomes after Excel bioabsorbable polymer versus Firebird durable polymer rapamycin-eluting stent for the treatment of coronary artery disease in a "real world" setting: six-month follow-up results.

BACKGROUND: Several clinical trials have shown that rapamycin-eluting stents significantly reduce the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The Firebird stent and the Excel stent (coated with bioabsorbable polymer) are two different types of rapamycin-eluting stents made in China, both have been recently approved for clinical use in China by State Food and Drug Administration. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between the two types of stents in daily practice. METHODS: In the month of June 2006, a total of 190 consecutive patients were treated exclusively with Firebird stents (n = 93, Firebird group) or Excel stents (n = 97, Excel group) in our center and were included in this study. The frequency of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularization), binary restenosis, and late lumen loss and stent thrombosis during a six-month follow-up period were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Patient and lesion characteristics were comparable between the groups. Major adverse cardiac event rates were low in hospital and at 6 months (2.1% in the Excel group and 0% in the Firebird group, P > 0.05). The 6-month angiographic in-stent restenosis rate was 0% in both groups, with an associated late loss of (0.15 +/- 0.21) mm versus (0.14 +/- 0.20) mm (P = 0.858) and the in-segment restenosis rate was also 0% for the Excel group and the Firebird group. There was no definite stent thrombosis identified in either group during the six-month follow-up period and only one patient in the Excel group had probable stent thrombosis in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this mid-term, single-center study showed that both of the Firebird and the Excel rapamycin eluting stent had similar effects on reducing the incidence of MACE and the risk of restenosis (both in-stent and in-segment binary restenosis) after PCI in daily practice.