Prognostic Assessment of Fractional Flow Reserve in Different Strata in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. / Avaliação Prognóstica da Reserva de Fluxo Fracionada em Diferentes Estratos nos Pacientes com Doença Arterial Coronariana.

BACKGROUND: There are limited real-world data on the clinical course of untreated coronary lesions according to their functional severity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 5-year clinical outcomes of patients with revascularized lesions with fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤ 0.8 and patients with non-revascularized lesions with FFR > 0.8. METHODS: The FFR assessment was performed in 218 patients followed for up to 5 years. Participants were classified based on FFR into ischemia group (≤ 0.8, intervention group, n = 55), low-normal FFR group (> 0.8-0.9, n = 91), and high-normal FFR group (> 0.9, n = 72). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and need for repeat revascularization. The significance level was set at 0.05; therefore, results with a p-value < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Most patients were male (62.8%) with a mean age of 64.1 years. Diabetes was present in 27%. On coronary angiography, the severity of stenosis was 62% in the ischemia group, 56.4% in the low-normal FFR group, and 54.3% in the high-normal FFR group (p<0.05). Mean follow-up was 3.5 years. The incidence of MACEs was 25.5%, 13.2%, and 11.1%, respectively (p=0.037). MACE incidence did not differ significantly between the low-normal and high-normal FFR groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with FFR indicative of ischemia had poorer outcomes than those in non-ischemia groups. There was no difference in the incidence of events between the low-normal and high-normal FFR groups. Long-term studies with a large sample size are needed to better assess cardiovascular outcomes in patients with moderate coronary stenosis with FFR values between 0.8 and 1.0.

FUNDAMENTO: Existem dados limitados sobre a evolução clínica de lesões coronarianas não tratadas de acordo com sua gravidade funcional no mundo real. OBJETIVO: Este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar os resultados clínicos de até 5 anos em pacientes com lesões revascularizadas com reserva de fluxo fracionada (FFR) ≤ 0,8 e em pacientes com lesões não revascularizadas com FFR > 0,8. MÉTODOS: A avaliação pelo FFR foi realizada em 218 pacientes seguidos por até 5 anos. Os participantes foram classificados com base na FFR no grupo isquêmico (≤ 0,8, grupo intervenção, n = 55), no grupo FFR normal-baixa (> 0,8-0,9, n = 91) e no grupo FFR normal-alta (> 0,9, n = 72). O desfecho primário foram eventos cardíacos adversos maiores (ECAMs), um composto de morte, infarto do miocárdio e necessidade de nova revascularização. O nível de significância adotado neste estudo foi alfa = 0,05; deste modo, resultados com valores de p < 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significativos. RESULTADOS: A maioria dos participantes era do sexo masculino (62,8%) com média de idade de 64,1 anos. Diabetes estava presente em 27%. À angiografia coronariana, a gravidade da estenose avaliada foi de 62%, 56,4% e 54,3% nos grupos isquêmico, FFR normal-baixa e FFR normal-alta, respectivamente (p < 0,05). O período médio de acompanhamento foi de 3,5 anos. A incidência ECAM foi de 25,5%, 13,2% e 11,1%, respectivamente (p = 0,037). Não houve diferença na incidência de ECAM entre os grupos FFR normal-baixa e FFR normal-alta (p = NS). CONCLUSÃO: Pacientes com FFR indicativa de isquemia apresentaram piores desfechos quando comparados aos dos grupos não isquêmicos. Entre os grupos que apresentaram valores de FFR considerados normal-baixo e normal-alto, não houve diferença na incidência de eventos. Há necessidade de estudos de longo prazo e com grande número de pacientes para melhor avaliar os desfechos cardiovasculares em pacientes portadores de estenose coronariana moderada com valores de FFR entre 0,8 e 1,0.

Avaliação Prognóstica da Reserva de Fluxo Fracionada em Diferentes Estratos nos Pacientes com Doença Arterial Coronariana / Prognostic Assessment of Fractional Flow Reserve in Different Strata in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

Resumo Fundamento Existem dados limitados sobre a evolução clínica de lesões coronarianas não tratadas de acordo com sua gravidade funcional no mundo real. Objetivo Este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar os resultados clínicos de até 5 anos em pacientes com lesões revascularizadas com reserva de fluxo fracionada (FFR) ≤ 0,8 e em pacientes com lesões não revascularizadas com FFR > 0,8. Métodos A avaliação pelo FFR foi realizada em 218 pacientes seguidos por até 5 anos. Os participantes foram classificados com base na FFR no grupo isquêmico (≤ 0,8, grupo intervenção, n = 55), no grupo FFR normal-baixa (> 0,8-0,9, n = 91) e no grupo FFR normal-alta (> 0,9, n = 72). O desfecho primário foram eventos cardíacos adversos maiores (ECAMs), um composto de morte, infarto do miocárdio e necessidade de nova revascularização. O nível de significância adotado neste estudo foi alfa = 0,05; deste modo, resultados com valores de p < 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significativos. Resultados A maioria dos participantes era do sexo masculino (62,8%) com média de idade de 64,1 anos. Diabetes estava presente em 27%. À angiografia coronariana, a gravidade da estenose avaliada foi de 62%, 56,4% e 54,3% nos grupos isquêmico, FFR normal-baixa e FFR normal-alta, respectivamente (p < 0,05). O período médio de acompanhamento foi de 3,5 anos. A incidência ECAM foi de 25,5%, 13,2% e 11,1%, respectivamente (p = 0,037). Não houve diferença na incidência de ECAM entre os grupos FFR normal-baixa e FFR normal-alta (p = NS). Conclusão Pacientes com FFR indicativa de isquemia apresentaram piores desfechos quando comparados aos dos grupos não isquêmicos. Entre os grupos que apresentaram valores de FFR considerados normal-baixo e normal-alto, não houve diferença na incidência de eventos. Há necessidade de estudos de longo prazo e com grande número de pacientes para melhor avaliar os desfechos cardiovasculares em pacientes portadores de estenose coronariana moderada com valores de FFR entre 0,8 e 1,0.

Abstract Background There are limited real-world data on the clinical course of untreated coronary lesions according to their functional severity. Objective To evaluate the 5-year clinical outcomes of patients with revascularized lesions with fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤ 0.8 and patients with non-revascularized lesions with FFR > 0.8. Methods The FFR assessment was performed in 218 patients followed for up to 5 years. Participants were classified based on FFR into ischemia group (≤ 0.8, intervention group, n = 55), low-normal FFR group (> 0.8-0.9, n = 91), and high-normal FFR group (> 0.9, n = 72). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and need for repeat revascularization. The significance level was set at 0.05; therefore, results with a p-value < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results Most patients were male (62.8%) with a mean age of 64.1 years. Diabetes was present in 27%. On coronary angiography, the severity of stenosis was 62% in the ischemia group, 56.4% in the low-normal FFR group, and 54.3% in the high-normal FFR group (p<0.05). Mean follow-up was 3.5 years. The incidence of MACEs was 25.5%, 13.2%, and 11.1%, respectively (p=0.037). MACE incidence did not differ significantly between the low-normal and high-normal FFR groups. Conclusion Patients with FFR indicative of ischemia had poorer outcomes than those in non-ischemia groups. There was no difference in the incidence of events between the low-normal and high-normal FFR groups. Long-term studies with a large sample size are needed to better assess cardiovascular outcomes in patients with moderate coronary stenosis with FFR values between 0.8 and 1.0.

Resultados angiográficos e do seguimento clínico de 5 Anos após implante de stents farmacológicos com revestimento biodegradável em pacientes com alto risco de reestenose: análise de subgrupo do estudo randomizado PAINT / Angiographic and 5-year clinical follow-up after implantation of drug-eluting stents with biodegradable coating in patients at high risk of restenosis: the PAINT randomized trial

Introdução: Polímeros biodegradáveis foram desenvolvidos para reduzir a reação de hipersensibilidade associada aos polímeros duráveis dos stents farmacológicos de primeira geração, mantendo sua eficácia antiproliferativa e aumentado sua segurança. Avaliamos os resultados angiográficos de 9 meses e os resultados clínicos de longo prazo dos stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis em pacientes com alto risco de reestenose. Métodos: Pacientes com diâmetro de referência ≤ 2,5 mm, extensão da lesão ≥ 15 mm, diabetes, ou uma combinação dessas características foram selecionados da população do estudo PAINT. Esses pacientes foram previamente randomizados e alocados para intervenção coronária percutânea recebendo os stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis com sirolimus ou com paclitaxel ou stents metálicos, na razão 2:2:1. Resultados: Cento e setenta e oito pacientes foram tratados com stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis (n = 142) ou stents metálicos (n = 36). No acompanhamento angiográfico de 9 meses, os primeiros mostraram menor perda tardia (0,40 ± 0,42 mm vs. 0,90 ± 0,47 mm; p < 0,01) e reestenose binária (7,4% vs. 25%; p < 0,01). No acompanhamento clínico de 5 anos, o grupo com stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis mostrou menores taxas do desfecho combinado de morte cardíaca, infarto do miocárdio e revascularização do vaso-alvo (16,2% vs. 38,0%; p = 0,03), principalmente devido à redução da revascularização do vaso-alvo (9,9% vs. 36,1%; p < 0,01). Morte total, morte cardíaca e infarto do miocárdio não foram diferentes entre os grupos. A trombose do stent, provável ou definitiva, ocorreu em 2,8% vs. 0% (p = 0,30). Conclusões: Os stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis eluidores de paclitaxel ou sirolimus foram eficazes na redução de reestenose angiográfica aos 9 meses e na necessidade de reintervenção por reestenose clínica em 5 anos, sem aumentar o risco de...

Background: Biodegradable polymers were developed to reduce the hypersensitivity reaction associated to durable polymers found with the first generation drug-eluting stents, while maintaining antiproliferative efficacy and increasing safety. This study evaluated the 9-month angiographic follow-up and long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents compared with identical platform metallic stents in patients with high-risk for restenosis. Methods: Patients with a reference diameter ≤ 2.5 mm, lesion length ≥ 15 mm, diabetes, or a combination of these characteristics were selected from the population of the PAINT trial. These patients were previously randomized and allocated for percutaneous coronary intervention with either a sirolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent, a paclitaxel-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent, or an identical metallic platform stent, at a ratio of 2:2:1. Results: One hundred and seventy-eight patients were treated with biodegradable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents (n = 142) or bare metal stents (n = 36). At the 9-month angiographic follow-up, biodegradable polymercoated drug-eluting stents had lower rates of late loss (0.40 ± 0.42 mm vs. 0.90 ± 0.47 mm; p < 0.01) and binary restenosis (7.4% vs. 25%; p <0.01). In the 5-year clinical follow-up, the group with biodegradable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents had lower rates of the composite endpoint of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (16.2% vs. 38.0%; p = 0.03), especially due to the reduction of target vessel revascularization (9.9% vs. 36.1%; (p 0.01). Total death, cardiac death and myocardial infarction were not different among groups. 0% (p = 0.30). Conclusions: Paclitaxel or sirolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stents were effective in reducing angiographic restenosis at 9 months and the need of reintervention for clinical restenosis in 5...

Very late outcomes of drug-eluting stents coated with biodegradable polymers: insights from the 5-year follow-up of the randomized PAINT trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the very long-term outcomes after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) coated with biodegradable polymers (BP). This report presents the 5-year clinical follow-up of patients treated with BP-DES in the randomized PAINT trial. METHODS: The PAINT study is a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial that allocated 274 patients for treatment with two BP-DES formulations [paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SES)] or bare metal stents (BMS) in a 1:2:2 ratio, respectively. The primary end-point of this sub-study was defined as the composite of the major cardiac adverse events (MACE) cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 5 years. RESULTS: The 5-year MACE rates were different among the groups: 35.3%, 22.5% and 16.9% for BMS, PES and SES, respectively (P<0.05 for both DES vs. bare stent comparisons). The primary end-point was mainly driven by TVR: 31.8%, 14.1% and 12.2% for bare stents, PES and SES, respectively (P<0.05 for both DES vs. bare stent comparisons). The incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) was null for BMS during the entire follow-up. There was no definite or probable ST in the SES group after the second year, while one patient (1.0%) presented with a definite ST episode in the PES group between 4 and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The tested biodegradable-polymer coated stents releasing either paclitaxel or sirolimus, compared with same bare metal platform, sustained their effectiveness in reducing combined major adverse cardiac events and re-intervention without an increase in ST during 5 years of follow-up.

Late clinical outcomes after implantation of drug-eluting stents coated with biodegradable polymers: 3-year follow-up of the PAINT randomised trial.

AIMS: The long-term clinical performance of drug-eluting stents (DES) coated with biodegradable polymers is poorly known. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 274 coronary patients were randomly allocated to paclitaxel-eluting stents, sirolimus-eluting stents, or bare metal stents (2:2:1 ratio). The two DES used the same biodegradable polymers and were identical except for the drug. At three years, the pooled DES population had similar rates of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (9.0% vs. 7.1; p=0.6), but lower risk of repeat interventions (10.0% vs. 29.9%; p<0.01) than controls with bare stents. The cumulative 3-year incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis in the pooled DES group was 2.3% (first year: 1.8%; second year: 0.4%; third year: zero). There were no significant differences in outcomes between paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents. CONCLUSIONS: The biodegradable-polymer coated DES releasing either paclitaxel or sirolimus were effective in reducing the 3-year rate of re-interventions.

Fundamento e desenho do teste randomizado PAINT / Rationale and design for the PAINT randomized trial / Fundamento y diseño del test randomizado PAINT

Fundamento: Descrevemos as bases teóricas e o formato do "Estudo PAINT - Intervenção percutânea com stents com eluição de paclitaxel ou sirolimus em polímero biodegradável comparados com stents sem recobrimento no tratamento de lesões coronárias de novo". Objetivo: Avaliar duas novas formulações de stents com eluição de paclitaxel ou sirolimus em comparação com um stent de estrutura metálica idêntica, porém sem recobrimento polimérico ou eluição de droga. Métodos: O PAINT é um estudo randomizado, multicêntrico, de 3 braços, conduzido em centros terciários brasileiros, que incluiu 275 pacientes alocados para tratamento com os stents InfinniumR (paclitaxel), the SupralimusR (sirolimus) ou Milennium MatrixR (sem recobrimento) na proporção 2:2:1 ratio. Os pacientes apresentavam lesões coronarianas de novo em vasos nativos com um diâmetro entre 2,5 e 3,5 mm, passíveis de tratamento com um único stent com comprimento de 29 mm ou menos. O objetivo primário era comparar a perda tardia aos nove meses de ambos stents com paclitaxel- ou sirolimus versus a perda luminal dos stents convencionais de controle. Objetivos secundários importantes incluíam a comparação angiográfica entre os dois tipos de stents farmacológicos, bem como a análise da ocorrência de eventos clínicos adversos. Resultados e conclusões: O estudo PAINT apresenta um formato peculiar e único que permitiu a avaliação da segurança e eficácia de duas novas formulações de stents farmacológicos, com carreador polimérico biodegradável, e liberação de paclitaxel ou sirolimus, os quais foram comparados contra um stent metálico convencional (objetivo primário). Uma vez que os stents farmacológicos diferiram entre sí somente pela droga, mas eram idênticos nas suas outras características, os estudo também permitiu a comparação do efeito anti-restenótico entre sirolimus e paclitaxel (objetivo secundário).

Background: We describe the rationale and design for the "PercutAneous Intervention with biodegradable-polymer based paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting versus bare stents for de novo coronary lesions - PAINT trial". Objectives: To evaluate two novel formulations of paclitaxel-eluting stent and the sirolimus-eluting stent against a stent with the same metallic structure but without polymer coating or drug elution. Methods: The PAINT is a multicenter 3-arm randomized trial, conducted in Brazilian tertiary institutions, which included 275 patients allocated for the InfinniumR paclitaxel-eluting stent, the SupralimusR sirolimus-eluting stent or the Milennium MatrixR bare metal stent in a 2:2:1 ratio. Patients had de novo coronary lesions in native vessels with a diameter between 2.5 and 3.5 mm, amenable for treatment with a single stent of 29 mm or less in length. The primary objetive was to compare the in-stent late loss at 9 months of both paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting versus the late loss of control bare metal stents. Important secondary objectives included the comparison in outcomes between sirolimus and paclitaxel stents, as well as the analysis of the incidence of major adverse cardiac events. Results amd conclusions: The PAINT trial had a unique design that allowed for the evaluation of the safety and efficacy profiles of two novel drug-eluting stent formulations, with a biodegradable-polymer carrier and releasing paclitaxel or sirolimus, which were compared against a bare metal stent (primary objective). As the drug-eluting stents differed by the drug, but were identical otherwise, the trial also allowed the comparison of the anti-restenosis effects of sirolimus versus paclitaxel (secondary objective).

Fundamento: Describimos las bases teóricas y el formato del "Estudio PAINT - Intervención percutánea con stents recubiertos de paclitaxel o sirolimus en polímero biodegradable comparados con stents no recubiertos en el tratamiento de lesiones coronarias de novo". Objetivo: Evaluar dos nuevas formulaciones de stents con liberación de paclitaxel o sirolimus en comparación con un stent de estructura metálica idéntica, pero sin recubierto polimérico o liberación de droga. Métodos: El PAINT es un estudio randomizado, multicéntrico, de 3 brazos, llevado a cabo en centros terciaros brasileños, que incluyó a 275 pacientes destinados a tratamiento con los stents InfinniumR (paclitaxel), the SupralimusR (sirolimus) o Milennium MatrixR (no recubierto) en la proporción 2:2:1. Los pacientes presentaban lesiones coronarias de novo en vasos nativos con un diámetro entre 2,5 y 3,5 mm, pasibles de tratamiento con un único stent de hasta 29 mm de longitud. El objetivo primario era comparar la pérdida luminal tardía a los nueve meses de ambos stents con paclitaxel- o sirolimus versus la pérdida luminal de los stents convencionales de control. Los objetivos secundarios importantes incluían la comparación angiográfica entre los dos tipos de stents farmacológicos, así como el análisis de la ocurrencia de eventos clínicos adversos. Resultados y conclusiones: El estudio PAINT presenta un formato peculiar y único que permitió la evaluación de la seguridad y eficacia de dos nuevas formulaciones de stents farmacológicos, con transportador polimérico biodegradable, y liberación de paclitaxel o sirolimus, los que fueron comparados con un stent metálico convencional (objetivo primario). Dado que los stents farmacológicos diferían entre sí solamente por la droga, pero eran idénticos en sus otras características, el estudio también permitió la comparación del efecto antireestenótico entre sirolimus y paclitaxel (objetivo secundario).

Randomized evaluation of two drug-eluting stents with identical metallic platform and biodegradable polymer but different agents (paclitaxel or sirolimus) compared against bare stents: 1-year results of the PAINT trial.

OBJECTIVES: We tested two novel drug-eluting stents (DES), covered with a biodegradable-polymer carrier and releasing paclitaxel or sirolimus, which were compared against a bare metal stent (primary objective). The DES differed by the drug, but were identical otherwise, allowing to compare the anti-restenosis effects of sirolimus versus paclitaxel (secondary objective). BACKGROUND: The efficacy of novel DES with biodegradable polymers should be tested in the context of randomized trials, even when using drugs known to be effective, such as sirolimus and paclitaxel. METHODS: Overall, 274 patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels scheduled for stent implantation were randomly assigned (2:2:1 ratio) for the paclitaxel (n = 111), sirolimus (n = 106), or bare metal stent (n = 57) groups. Angiographic follow-up was obtained at 9 months and major cardiac adverse events up to 12 months. RESULTS: Both paclitaxel and sirolimus stents reduced the 9-month in-stent late loss (0.54-0.44 mm, 0.32-0.43 mm, vs. 0.90-0.45 mm respectively), and 1-year risk of target vessel revascularization and combined major adverse cardiac events (P < 0.05 for both, in all comparisons), compared with controls. Sirolimus stents had lower late loss than paclitaxel stents (P < 0.01), but similar 1-year clinical outcomes. There were no differences in the risk of death, infarction, or stent thrombosis among the study groups. CONCLUSION: Both novel DES were effective in reducing neointimal hyperplasia and 1-year re-intervention, compared to bare metal stents. Our findings also suggest that sirolimus is more effective than paclitaxel in reducing angiographic neointima, although this effect was not associated with better clinical outcomes.

Rationale and design for the PAINT randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: We describe the rationale and design for the 'PercutAneous INTervention with biodegradable-polymer based paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting versus bare stents for de novo coronary lesions - PAINT trial'. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate two novel formulations of paclitaxel-eluting stent and the sirolimus-eluting stent against a stent with the same metallic structure but without polymer coating or drug elution. METHODS: The PAINT is a multicenter 3-arm randomized trial, conducted in Brazilian tertiary institutions, which included 275 patients allocated for the InfinniumR paclitaxel-eluting stent, the SupralimusR sirolimus-eluting stent or the Milennium MatrixR bare metal stent in a 2:2:1 ratio. Patients had de novo coronary lesions in native vessels with a diameter between 2.5 and 3.5 mm, amenable for treatment with a single stent of 29 mm or less in length. The primary objective was to compare the in-stent late loss at 9 months of both paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting versus the late loss of control bare metal stents. Important secondary objectives included the comparison in outcomes between sirolimus and paclitaxel stents, as well as the analysis of the incidence of major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The PAINT trial had a unique design that allowed for the evaluation of the safety and efficacy profiles of two novel drug-eluting stent formulations, with a biodegradable-polymer carrier and releasing paclitaxel or sirolimus, which were compared against a bare metal stent (primary objective). As the drug-eluting stents differed by the drug, but were identical otherwise, the trial also allowed the comparison of the anti-restenosis effects of sirolimus versus paclitaxel (secondary objective).

Expert consensus (SBC/SBHCI) on the use of drug-eluting stents: recommendations of the Brazilian society of interventional cardiology/ Brazilian society of cardiology for the Brazilian public single healthcare system.

The authors review percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) evolution and its growing application in myocardial revascularization for patients with coronary heart disease in Brazil and worldwide. PCI was introduced in 1977 using only the catheter balloon. Limitations of this method (acute occlusion and coronary restenosis) led to the adoption of coronary stents and more recently the advent of drug-eluting stents2, which were developed to drastically reduce restenosis rates. These developments allowed the exponential growth of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in Brazil which have replaced many bypass surgery procedures and have become the gold standard for the majority of symptomatic patients suffering from coronary artery disease. The preference for this procedure gained new dimensions in 2000 when the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS) began reimbursing for stent procedures. This measure exemplified the importance of the Public Healthcare System's participation in incorporating medical advances and offering a high standard of cardiovascular treatment to a large portion of the Brazilian population. It is emphasized that prevention of in-stent restenosis is complex due to its unpredictable and ubiquitous occurrence. Control of this condition improves quality of life and reduces the recurrence of angina pectoris, the need to perform new revascularization procedures and hospital readmissions. The overall success of the drug-eluting stents has proven to be reliable and consistent in overcoming restenosis and has some beneficial impact for all clinical and angiographic conditions. This paper discusses the adoption and criteria for the use of drug-eluting stents in other countries as well as the recommendations established by the Brazilian Society of Interventional Cardiology for their reimbursement by SUS. The incorporation of new healthcare technology involves two distinct stages. During the first stage, the product is registered with the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA). During this stage the interested company submits to the regulatory agency, results from clinical studies that demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the new device or pharmaceutical product. Frequently, in addition to clinical studies, approval records for clinical use from the regulatory agencies of other countries, mainly the United States of America and the European Community are also submitted. The successful completion of this stage means that the medication or device may be prescribed or used by the physicians in Brazil. The second stage in the incorporation of new healthcare technology involves the reimbursement or financing of the treatment that was approved in the previous stage based on its efficacy and safety. This stage can be more complex than the first one since the new technology, whether a substitution for established treatment methods or the introduction of a new treatment concept, are usually more expensive. The incorporation of new technology requires a cost-effectiveness analysis so that fund administrators can make decisions based on the universal scenario of limited resources to finance healthcare with treatments that are more and more burdensome. The difficulties of funding management are aggravated by medical and social ethical implications that arise when a treatment is approved based on its efficacy and safety but is not made available to patients who could benefit greatly from it. In Brazil, assessment methods for the incorporation of new technology based on reimbursement or financing have not been fully developed for either the private healthcare plans or the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS). The implementation of new technology in both healthcare systems is a slow process and frequently the implementation is a result of the requirements of patients or the organizations that represent them and at times is the result of legal proceedings or political pressure imposed by physicians and their respective scientific societies. Our objective is to review the evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Brazil and its current status in view of the advent of drug-eluting stents, the growing participation of drug-eluting stents in myocardial revascularization to treat patients with coronary heart disease, as well as, to compare the regulatory standards from Brazil and other countries regarding the incorporation and recommendations for the use of this new technology.

Consenso de especialistas (SBC/SBHCI) sobre o uso de stents farmacológicos: recomendações da sociedade brasileira de cardiologia/sociedade brasileira de hemodinâmica e cardiologia intervencionista ao sistema único de saúde / Expert consensus (SBC/SBHCI) on the use of drug-eluting stents: recommendations of the Brazilian society of interventional cardiology/ Brazilian society of cardiology for the Brazilian public single healthcare system / Expert consensus (SBC/SBHCI) on the use of drug-eluting stents: recommendations of the Brazilian society of interventional cardiology/ Brazilian society of cardiology for the Brazilian public single healthcare system

Os autores revisam a evolução da intervenção coronariana percutânea, a sua crescente aplicação na revascularização miocárdica de pacientes portadores de doença arterial coronariana, seja no Brasil, seja no âmbito mundial. Desde a introdução do método, em 1977, com a utilização isolada do cateter-balão, a constatação de que o mesmo tinha limitações (oclusão aguda e reestenose), a adoção dos stents coronarianos e, mais recentemente, o advento dos stents farmacológicos, idealizados para reduzir ainda mais as taxas de reestenose, possibilitaram o crescimento exponencial da aplicação da intervenção coronariana percutânea (ICP) no Brasil, superando a cirurgia de revascularização e tornando-se o tratamento majoritário para enfermos sintomáticos, acometidos de aterosclerose obstrutiva coronariana. Esta preferência se salienta, a partir do ano 2000, após o início do reembolso dos stents pelo Sistema de Unico de Saúde Brasileiro. Este fato demonstra a importância do Sistema Público de Saúde, quando este incorpora os avanços médicos, e passa a oferecer bons padrões de tratamento cardiovascular a grande número de brasileiros. Destaca-se a complexidade da profilaxia da reestenose intra-stent, por sua ocorrência imprevisível e ubíqua. O controle deste fenômeno melhora a qualidade de vida, reduzindo o retorno da angina do peito, a realização de novos procedimentos de revascularização e a re-internação hospitalar. Os stents farmacológicos lograram êxito sólido e consistente na conquista deste objetivo de forma abrangente, beneficiando todas as apresentações clínicas e angiográficas, em maior ou menor grau. Sua adoção e critérios para sua utilização em outros países são discutidos, assim como a formalização das indicações preconizadas pela Sociedade Brasileira de Hemodinâmica e Cardiologia Intervencionista, para o seu reembolso pelo SUS. A incorporação de novas tecnologias em saúde é um processo que compreende duas etapas distintas: na primeira, o registro do produto é efetivado na Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)...

The authors review percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) evolution and its growing application in myocardial revascularization for patients with coronary heart disease in Brazil and worldwide. PCI was introduced in 1977 using only the catheter balloon. Limitations of this method (acute occlusion and coronary restenosis) led to the adoption of coronary stents and more recently the advent of drug-eluting stents², which were developed to drastically reduce restenosis rates. These developments allowed the exponential growth of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in Brazil which have replaced many bypass surgery procedures and have become the gold standard for the majority of symptomatic patients suffering from coronary artery disease. The preference for this procedure gained new dimensions in 2000 when the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS) began reimbursing for stent procedures. This measure exemplified the importance of the Public Healthcare System's participation in incorporating medical advances and offering a high standard of cardiovascular treatment to a large portion of the Brazilian population. It is emphasized that prevention of in-stent restenosis is complex due to its unpredictable and ubiquitous occurrence. Control of this condition improves quality of life and reduces the recurrence of angina pectoris, the need to perform new revascularization procedures and hospital readmissions. The overall success of the drug-eluting stents has proven to be reliable and consistent in overcoming restenosis and has some beneficial impact for all clinical and angiographic conditions. This paper discusses the adoption and criteria for the use of drug-eluting stents in other countries as well as the recommendations established by the Brazilian Society of Interventional Cardiology for their reimbursement by SUS. The incorporation of new healthcare technology involves two distinct stages. During the first stage, the product is registered with the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA)...

Hemodynamic effects of sildenafil in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Recently the new specific phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil was introduced into therapy for erectile dysfunction. The hemodynamic effects of sildenafil may be potentially hazardous for patients with cardiac disease. Sildenafil has been reported to augment the hypotensive effects of nitrates. There is sparse information regarding the systemic and pulmonary hemodynamic effects of a single oral dose of sildenafil in patients with stable angina. METHODS: Male patients referred for coronary angiography with diagnosis of chronic stable angina were enrolled in this study to assess the acute hemodynamic effects of sildenafil. Patients receiving long-acting or sublingual nitrates for the last 6 h before the study were excluded. Hemodynamic measurement were taken during right and left heart catheterization in the basal state and 60 min after 50 mg of oral sildenafil. RESULTS: Twelve patients (age 53+/-7 years) were studied. All had stable angina CCS class II or III. Four had previous myocardial infarction. By coronary angiography, seven patients had at least one coronary artery with >70% stenosis, four had at least one with 50-70% stenosis, and one had only intimal irregularities. There were no significant effects of sildenafil on systemic or pulmonary arterial pressure, left ventricle end diastolic pressure, cardiac output, and systemic or pulmonary vascular resistance (P>0.05 for all). No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: A single oral dose of sildenafil had no significant hemodynamic effect in supine patients with stable angina. Isolated administration of sildenafil does not appear to be associated to adverse cardiovascular effects.