Alberto Benassi

Long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents: two-year results of the REAL (REgistro AngiopLastiche dell'Emilia Romagna) multicenter registry.

Background— The long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) have been questioned recently. Methods and Results— Between July 2002 and June 2005, 10 629 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention with either DES (n=3064) or bare-metal stents (BMS, n=7565) were enrolled in a prospective registry comprising 13 hospitals. We assessed the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (death, acute myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization) and angiographic stent thrombosis during 2-year follow-up. A propensity score analysis to adjust for different baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics was performed. The 2-year unadjusted cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 17.8% in the DES group and 21.0% in the BMS group (P=0.003 by log-rank test). Angiographic stent thrombosis was 1.0% in the DES group and 0.6% in the BMS group (P=0.09). After adjustment, the 2-year cumulative incidence of death was 6.8% in the DES group and 7.4% in the BMS group (P=0.35), whereas the rates were 5.3% in DES and 5.8% in BMS for acute myocardial infarction (P=0.46), 9.1% in DES and 12.9% in BMS for target-vessel revascularization (P<0.00001), and 16.9% in DES and 21.8% in BMS for major adverse cardiac events (P<0.0001). Independent predictors of target-vessel revascularization in the DES group were diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.76), renal failure (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.69), and reference vessel diameter (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.93). Conclusions— In this large real-world population, the beneficial effect of DES in reducing the need for new revascularization compared with BMS extends to 2 years without evidence of a worse safety profile.

Impact of Bifurcation Technique on 2-Year Clinical Outcomes in 773 Patients With Distal Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents

Background—Distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis represents a technical challenge for interventional cardiologists. In this study, we compared 2-year clinical outcomes of different stenting strategies in patients with distal ULMCA stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. Methods and Results—The survey promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology on ULMCA stenosis was an observational study on patients with ULMCA stenosis treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. In this study, we selected patients with distal ULMCA stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. Seven hundred seventy-three patients were eligible for this study: 456 were treated with 1 stent (group 1) and 317 with 2 stents (group 2). The primary end point of the study was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as the occurrence of mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. During a 2-year follow-up, risk-adjusted survival free from MACE was significantly higher in patients in group 1 than in patients in group 2. The propensity-adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of 2-year MACE in patients in group 1 versus group 2 was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.76). The propensity-adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of 2-year cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction in patients in group 1 versus group 2 was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.85). Conclusions—Compared with the 2-stent technique, the 1-stent technique is associated with a better 2-year MACE-free survival. The stenting strategy is a prognostic factor that should be taken into account when deciding the optimal revascularization treatment.

Two-Year Clinical Outcome With Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in a Real-World Registry of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis from the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology

Data are limited about the relative efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DESs) versus bare-metal stents (BMSs) for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. The survey promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology on ULMCA stenosis was an observational study involving 19 high-volume Italian centers of patients with ULMCA stenosis treated using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). From January 2002 to December 2006, of 1,453 patients identified with ULMCA stenosis treated with PCI, 1,111 were treated with DESs and 342 were treated with BMSs. During a 2-year follow-up, risk-adjusted survival free from cardiac death was significantly higher in patients treated with DESs than in those treated with BMSs. The propensity-adjusted hazard ratio for risk of 2-year cardiac mortality after DES versus BMS implantation was 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.77). The benefit of DESs in reducing cardiac mortality was obtained in the period from 3 to 6 months and maintained up to 2 years. In conclusion, for patients with ULMCA stenosis undergoing PCI, DES implantation was associated with higher adjusted rates of 2-year survival free from cardiac death. The benefit of DESs in reducing cardiac mortality was obtained in the period in which clinical manifestations of restenosis usually peak.

Long-Term Outcomes With Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in the Treatment of Saphenous Vein Graft Disease (Results from the REgistro Regionale AngiopLastiche Emilia-Romagna Registry)

Percutaneous revascularization of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) remains a challenging task. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown to decrease the incidence of restenosis in de novo native coronary artery lesions. However, their clinical value in SVGs remains to be established. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with DESs and bare metal stents (BMSs) for de novo lesions in SVGs. In a large prospective, multicenter registry, 360 patients underwent stenting of a de novo lesion in SVGs using BMSs (288 patients) or DESs (72 patients). Incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization, was recorded at a 12-month follow-up. Compared with the DES group, patients receiving BMSs were more likely to be men, to have chronic renal insufficiency or higher Charlson scores, but less likely to have undergone previous percutaneous coronary intervention. Incidence of MACEs at 12-month follow-up was similar in the 2 groups (17.8% in DES group vs 20.3% in BMS group, respectively, p = 0.460). Cox regression analysis identified age, chronic renal failure, cardiogenic shock at presentation, and ostial location of stenosis as independent predictors of long-term MACEs. In conclusion, our data suggest that rates of 12-month MACEs associated with the use of DESs and BMSs are similar in patients undergoing treatment of de novo lesions in SVGs.

Are drug-eluting stents superior to bare-metal stents in patients with unprotected non- bifurcational left main disease? Insights from a multicentre registry

AIMS To compare long-term clinical outcome following drug-eluting stents (DES) or bare-metal stents (BMS) implantation on lesions located at the ostium or the shaft of the left main in a large real-world population. The advent of DES decreased the risk of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) restenosis when compared with BMS, but it is unclear if this advantage continues when non-bifurcational lesions are considered. METHODS AND RESULTS The GISE-SICI registry is a retrospective, observational multicentre registry promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology in which 19 high-volume participating centres enrolled 1453 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention on ULMCA between January 2002 and December 2006. From the registry, a total of 479 consecutive patients with ostial and shaft lesions who underwent DES (n = 334) or BMS (n = 145) implantation were analysed with extensive multivariable and propensity score adjustments. At 3-year follow-up, risk-adjusted survival rates were higher in patients treated with DES than in those treated with BMS. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the risk of mortality after DES implantation relative to BMS implantation was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.15-0.96, P = 0.04). The adjusted HR for the risk of cardiac mortality was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09-1.04, P = 0.06). The adjusted 3-year rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were not significantly lower in the DES group than in the BMS group (P = 0.60). CONCLUSION In a large population of patients with lesions located at the ostium or the shaft of the left main in a real-world setting, DES were associated with favourable clinical outcomes when compared with BMS, although there was no evidence of a significant reduction in TLR with DES vs. BMS.

Real-world outcome of coronary bifurcation lesions in the drug-eluting stent era: Results from the 4,314-patient Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology (SICI-GISE) Italian Multicenter Registry on Bifurcations (I-BIGIS)

BACKGROUND Drug-eluting stents (DESs) introduction has somewhat renewed the issues of strategy and stenting technique for treatment of bifurcation lesions. In particular, concerns remain on extensive use of DESs, especially in the side branch, and on time of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) discontinuation, reflecting lack of pertinent long-term data. This study aimed to evaluate clinical safety and efficacy of different strategies for bifurcations treatment in a large observational real-world registry. METHODS A multicenter, retrospective Italian study of consecutive patients undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention between January 2002 and December 2006 was performed. The primary end point was the long-term rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The role of DAT length on outcome was also analyzed. RESULTS A total of 4,314 patients (4,487 lesions) were enrolled at 22 independent centers. In-hospital procedural success rate was 98.7%. After median follow-up of 24 months, MACEs occurred in 17.7%, with cardiac death in 3.4%, myocardial infarction in 4.0%, target lesion revascularization in 13.2%, and stent thrombosis in 2.9%. Extensive multivariable analysis showed that MACEs were independently predicted by age, diabetes, renal failure, systolic dysfunction, multivessel disease, myocardial infarction at admission, restenotic lesion, bare-metal stent implantation, complex stenting strategy, and short duration of DAT. CONCLUSIONS This large study based on current clinical practice in an unselected patient population presenting with bifurcation disease and submitted to percutaneous coronary intervention demonstrated favorable long-term clinical results in this challenging patient setting, especially when DESs, simple stenting strategy, and DAT for at least 6 months are used.

Patient selection to enhance the long-term benefit of first generation drug-eluting stents for coronary revascularisation procedures. Insights from a large multicentre registry.

AIMS To evaluate the long-term clinical outcome after drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation, and to test if patient selection could enhance their net clinical benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS We assessed the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE=death, acute myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation, TVR) and angiographic stent thrombosis (ST) during 3-year follow-up in a prospective multicentre registry. Propensity-score analysis to adjust for different clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics was performed. Overall, 14,115 patients enrolled in the registry received solely BMS (n=9,565) or DES (n=4,550). The incidence of definite ST was 0.6% for BMS and 1.3% for DES (p=0.003). The propensity-score adjusted incidence of cardiac death and myocardial infarction was similar between the two groups (DES 11.9% vs. BMS 12.1%, HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.04), whereas DES were associated with lower rates of TVR (DES 11.6% vs. BMS 15.2%, HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.76). The efficacy of DES in reducing TVR increased with increasing likelihood of TVR at baseline. CONCLUSIONS The beneficial effect of DES in reducing new revascularisations compared to BMS extends out to three years without a significantly worse overall safety profile. The benefit seems more evident in patients with the highest baseline risk of clinical restenosis.

Sex-related differences in patients undergoing percutaneous unprotected left main stenting.

AIMS Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly being used for unprotected left main (ULM) disease. Limited data are available on sex-related differences in this setting. We investigated gender-associated differences in patients undergoing stent-based PCI for ULM. METHODS AND RESULTS We analysed baseline, procedural and long-term data of patients with ULM undergoing stent-based PCI at participating centres. The primary end-point was the long-term rate of major cardiovascular events rate (MACE, i.e., the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation). The study population included 1,452 cases, with 27.8% females and 72.2% males. Women were older, more frequently diabetic, hypertensive or presenting with an acute coronary syndrome, and thus with a higher EuroSCORE, but were less commonly treated with drug-eluting stents (DES), in comparison to men (all p<0.01). After a median follow-up of 18 months, women showed an unadjusted higher risk of death (p=0.040), cardiac death (p=0.033), and the death/myocardial infarction (p=0.012). However, after multivariable adjustment, gender was no longer an independent predictor of death (hazard ratio=1.119 [0.804-1.558]), cardiac death (hazard ratio=1.045 [0.697-1.567]), or death/myocardial infarction (hazard ratio=0.531 [0.192-1.465]), given the predominant role of age, diabetes and EuroSCORE as independent predictors and confounders of the gender-based comparison. CONCLUSIONS Women undergoing PCI for ULM present more often with an acute coronary syndrome, are treated less frequently with DES, and have more adverse events, but these gender biases are not confirmed after adjusting for confounders. Thus, stent-based PCI for ULM offers similarly favourable clinical results in women as well as in men.

Simplifying clinical risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions: the case for the ACEF (age, creatinine, ejection fraction) score.

AIMS We aimed to appraise the predictive accuracy of a novel and user-friendly risk score, the ACEF (age, creatinine, ejection fraction), in patients undergoing PCI for coronary bifurcations. METHODS AND RESULTS A multicentre, retrospective study was conducted enrolling consecutive patients undergoing bifurcation PCI between January 2002 and December 2006 in 22 Italian centres. Patients with complete data to enable computation of the ACEF score were divided into three groups according to tertiles of ACEF score. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. The discrimination of the ACEF score as a continuous variable was also appraised with area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristic. A total of 3,535 patients were included: 1,119 in the lowest tertile of ACEF score, 1,190 in the mid tertile, and 1,153 in the highest tertile. Increased ACEF score was associated with significantly different rates of 30-day mortality (0.1% in the lowest tertile vs. 0.5% in the mid tertile and 3.0% in the highest tertile, p<0.001), with similar differences in myocardial infarction (0.3% vs. 0.7% and 1.8%, p<0.001) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, 0.5% vs. 1.2% and 4.3%, p<0.001). After an average follow-up of 24.4±15.1 months, increased ACEF score was still associated with a higher rate of all-cause death (1.3% vs. 2.4% and 11.0%, p<0.001), cardiac death (0.9% vs. 1.4% and 7.2%, p<0.001), myocardial infarction (3.4% vs. 2.7% and 5.7%, p<0.001), MACE (13.6% vs. 15.9% and 22.3%, p<0.001), and stent thrombosis (2.3% vs. 1.8% and 5.0%, p<0.001). Discrimination of ACEF score was satisfactory for 30-day mortality (AUC=0.82 [0.77-0.87], p<0.001), 30-day MACE (AUC=0.73 [0.67-0.78], p<0.001), long-term mortality (AUC=0.77 [0.74-0.81], p<0.001), and moderate for long-term MACE (AUC=0.60 [0.57-0.62], p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The simple and extremely user-friendly ACEF score can accurately identify patients undergoing PCI for coronary bifurcation lesions at high risk of early fatal or non-fatal complications, as well as long-term fatality.

Early and long-term outlook of percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation lesions in young patients

BACKGROUND Coronary artery disease is most common in older patients, but may occur in younger subjects. The outlook of young patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of challenging lesion subsets such as coronary bifurcations, is not established. We thus aimed to appraise the early and long-term results of PCI for bifurcations in young patients. METHODS A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted enrolling consecutive patients undergoing bifurcation PCI between 2002 and 2006 in 22 Italian centers. Patients were divided in 2 groups: age ≤ 45 years, and age > 45 years. The primary end-point was long-term rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS 4,314 patients were included: 195 (4.5%) in the younger group, and 4119 (95.5%) in the older group. 30-day outcomes did not show significant differences in MACE rates, with 1.0% in the ≤ 45 years group and 2.1% in the >45 years group (p=0.439), with death in 0.5% and 1.2% (p=0.388). At long-term follow-up (24.4 ± 15.1 months), younger patients showed similar rates of MACE, (12.8% vs. 16.6%, p=0.161), myocardial infarction (3.1% vs. 3.7%, p=0.633), target lesion revascularization (11.3% vs. 12.5%, p=0.627), or stent thrombosis (1.5% vs. 2.8%, p=0.294), despite an increased risk of death in older patients (1.0% vs. 5.0%, p=0.012). Even at extensive multivariable analysis, younger patients still faced a similar risk of MACE (HR=0.78 [0.48-1.27], p=0.318). CONCLUSIONS Despite their low age, young patients undergoing PCI for bifurcation face a significant risk of early and late non-fatal adverse events. Thus, they should not be denied careful medical management and follow-up.