Incidence and very long- term outcomes of stent thrombosis after bare-metal or drug-eluting stent implantation: a retrospective analysis.

AIM: Stent thrombosis is a major safety issue after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation and it is associated with major early and mid-term complications. However, its long-term impact has been incompletely described. We thus aimed to appraise incidence, predictors and very long-term outlook of stent thrombosis after bare metal stent (BMS) or drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing PCI with BMS or DES at our center between July 2002 and June 2004. For the purpose of this study, we employed a composite definition of stent thrombosis including any Academic Research Consortium stent thromboses (definite, probable, or possible). We adjudicated the following clinical events: death, myocardial infarction (stent thrombosis related), repeated revascularization, and the composite of these events (i.e., major adverse cardiac events, MACE). RESULTS: A total of 1112 patients were included, 854 (76.8%) treated with BMS and 258 (23.2%) treated with DES. At a median follow-up of 61.2 (11.03) months the incidence of stent thrombosis was 20 (1.8%), with 14 (1.3%) definite, 4 (0.4%) probable, and 2 (0.1%) possible according to the American Research Consortium statement. Patients developing stent thrombosis were more likely to have more complex angiographic features at baseline (including angiographically evident thrombus, 4 [20%] vs. 73 [6.6%], P=0.02) and a saphenous vein graft as target vessel (2 [10%] vs. 28 [2.5%], P=0.04). Conversely, being treated with a BMS or a DES did not confer any significant decrease or increase in the risk of stent thrombosis, as 7 [35%] of those with stent thrombosis had received at least a DES vs. 251 [22.9%] of those without stent thrombosis, P=0.28). Early clinical outcomes (at 30 days) distinguishing those with stent thrombosis versus those without were as follows: death in four (20%) vs. 2 (0.2%, P<0.001), myocardial infarction in 1 (5%) vs. 7 (0.6%, P=0.02), revascularization in 5 (25%) vs. 43 (3.9%, P<0.001), and MACE in 8 (40%) vs. 53 (4.8%, P<0.001). After more than 60 months of clinical follow-up, outcomes were as follows: death in 7 (35%) vs. 147 (13.5%, P=0.057), myocardial infarction in 6 (30%) vs. 40 (3.6%, P<0.001), revascularization in 15 (75%) vs. 317 (29%, P<0.001), and MACE in 19 (95%) vs. 453 (41.5%, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: This long-term registry shows that stent thrombosis remains a major safety issue after PCI with stent implantation, with a significant prognostic impact. However, in the present work the risk of stent thrombosis was similar with either DES or BMS, suggesting thus that DES are not associated with any increase in long-term thrombotic risk in comparison to BMS.

Very long-term outcome of peripheral arterial disease in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization: a retrospective analysis.

AIM: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation is a well known risk factor leading to an increased rates of stroke, cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction. Anyway there are few data on very-long term outcome (more than 1 year follow up) of PAD after stent implantation. We thus aimed to evaluate the influence of PAD on very long-term outcome of our PCI-population. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing PCI with stent implantation at our center between July 2002 and June 2004, and thus eligible for at least 4 years of follow-up. For the purpose of this study, we considered a diagnosis of PAD based on clinical evaluation and/or angiographic documentation. We adjudicated the following clinical events: death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and their composite (i.e. major adverse cardiac events, MACE). RESULTS; A total of 1008 patients were included, 109 with PAD and 899 Without PAD. Those with had more often diabetes (35% vs. 25%, P=0.002), hypertension (83% vs. 68%, P=0.001) and unfavorable basal clinical condition at the start of this study: past-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) (30% vs. 22%, P=0.005), past-Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) (24% vs. 14%, P=0.001), ejection fraction (EF) <35% (14% vs. 7%, P=0.02) and chronic renal failure (CRF) (15% vs. 6%, P=0.002). In addiction patient with PAD were more likely to have chronic total occlusion (CTO) (36% vs. 25%, p=0.02) and unprotected left main (16% vs. 8%,P=0.01). Clinical outcome at the time of follow-up (4,42 ± 1,66 years) was as follow: Revascularization (53% vs. 37%, P=0.002), Cardiac death (21% vs. 13%, P=0.04), MACE (69% vs. 49%, p<.001). Independent predictors of MACE according to our survival analysis were: PAD (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.01-1.69), Age >75 (HR 1.23; 95% CI 1-1.51), Chronic heart failure (HR1.72; 95% CI 1.19-2.5), Unprotected left main (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.12-1.96). CONCLUSION: This long-term registry shows that PAD remains an important clinical condition that negatively influences the outcome of patients undergoing PCI with stent implantation in a very long-term follow-up period.

Short and long term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stent and bare metal stent in patients with chronic kidney disease.

AIM: Coronary artery disease represents the most important cause of mortality and morbidity in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Despite continuous improvements in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), CKD is still associated with more adverse events after PCI. We performed a retrospective study to compare bare metal stents (BMS) versus drug eluting stents (DES) in CKD. METHODS: We included consecutively all patients undergoing PCI at our Centre from July 2002 to December 2005 with CKD, defined as creatinine clearance <60 mL/min. Patients who received only DES were compared to those who received only BMS. The primary end-point was the long-term rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, i.e. the composite of death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization). RESULTS: We included a total of 219 patients with CKD out of a total of 2354 patients, with 164 receiving BMS and 55 DES. After a mean follow up of 48 months, the MACE rate was significantly higher in BMS group (71% versus 38%, P<0.001). A similarly increased risk with BMS was found for death (45% versus 17%, P<0.001), whereas the rates for repeat coronary revascularization, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were not significantly different. Multivariable analysis showed that BMS vs.. DES implantation was not statistically significant associated with MACE, death, myocardial infarction, rePTCA or stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION: Compared with BMS, use of DES in patients with CKD is safe and effective in reducing adverse outcomes. However, differences found between groups in clinical end-point could be ascribed to selection bias and confounding factors.

Evolving standard in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Drug-eluting stents.

Coronary stent implantation is the predominant method of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). This is to be attributed to the ease of use beside the better short and long term clinical outcome as compared to balloon angioplasty. Nevertheless, improvements in operator skill and stent technology together with better use of adjunctive pharmacological therapy have contributed to the improvement in clinical outcome. However, the main limitation of coronary stenting is still represented by in-stent restenosis (ISR) with an estimated rate of 17-32%. Thus, compared to coronary bypass surgery, the major adverse cardiac events following stent implantation are still higher and mainly represented by the need for re-intervention. The advent of drug eluting stents (DES) has led the experts to predict that with DES there will be little or no difference between PCI and coronary bypass surgery in terms of long-term outcome leading to a further expansion of indications. The clinical trial programs of the 2 available DES for clinical use (sirolimus-eluting stent, SES - Cypher and paclitaxol-eluting stent - Taxus) have been able to demonstrate the safety and clinical efficacy of both. Nevertheless, off-label use in patients on high risk for restenosis confirmed these data. At least for SES as was demonstrated by 2 "real world" registries. Thus, the introduction of DES represents a remarkable evolution for new standards in coronary artery disease treatment and offers hope to those patients considered to be "high risk" such as diabetics, patients with ISR, diffuse disease in whom surgery was previously the only therapeutic option. This paper will discuss the main results of the clinical trial programs of the DES (mentioned above) available for clinical use in the present time and analyze technical and procedural aspects which could affect long term outcome.