Chang-Bum Park

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus (ESSENCE-DIABETES) Results From the ESSENCE-DIABETES Trial

Background— Drug-eluting stents significantly improved angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare metal stents in diabetic patients. However, a comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients has not been evaluated. Therefore we compared effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results— This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared everolimus-eluting stent (n=149) and sirolimus-eluting stent (n=151) implantation in diabetic patients. The primary end point was noninferiority of angiographic in-segment late loss at 8 months. Clinical events were also monitored for at least 12 months. Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for 8-month in-segment late loss (0.23±0.27 versus 0.37±0.52 mm; difference, −0.13 mm; 95% confidence interval, −0.25 to −0.02; upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval, −0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority), with reductions in in-stent restenosis (0% versus 4.7%; P=0.029) and in-segment restenosis (0.9% versus 6.5%; P=0.035). However, in-stent late loss (0.11±0.26 versus 0.20±0.49 mm; P=0.114) was not statistically different between the 2 groups. At 12 months, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (0.7% versus 2.6%; P=0.317), death (1.3% versus 3.3%; P=0.448), and myocardial infarction (0% versus 1.3%; P=0.498) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.0% versus 5.3%; P=0.218), were also not statistically different between the 2 groups. Conclusions— Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in reducing in-segment late loss and reduced angiographic restenosis at 8 months in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00997763.

Effects of vitamin B12 on cell proliferation and cellular alkaline phosphatase activity in human bone marrow stromal osteoprogenitor cells and UMR106 osteoblastic cells

Pernicious anemia has recently been recognized as one of the risk factors for osteoporosis and bone fractures, but the underlying pathophysiologic mechanism is still unknown. To determine whether vitamin B12 has any direct effect on osteoblasts, we studied the effects of vitamin B12 on the proliferation and alkaline phosphatase activity in human bone marrow stromal osteoprogenitor cells (hBMSC) and UMR106 osteoblastic cells. Vitamin B12 at concentrations as low as 10(-12) mol/L significantly stimulated [3H]-thymidine incorporation in both types of cells, but concentrations higher than 10(-12) mol/L did not produce a greater effect. Vitamin B12 in the concentration range from 10(-12) to 10(-8) mol/L concentration-dependently increased alkaline phosphatase activity in both hBMSC and UMR106 cells. Based on these results, we suggest that a suppressed activity of osteoblasts may contribute to osteoporosis and fractures in patients with vitamin B12 deficiency.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Comparison Study of Triple Antiplatelet Therapy With Dual Antiplatelet Therapy to Reduce Restenosis After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Long Coronary Lesions: Results From the DECLARE-LONG II (Drug-Eluting Stenting Followed by Cilostazol Treatment Reduces Late Restenosis in Patients with Long Coronary Lesions) Trial

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine whether cilostazol reduces intimal hyperplasia in patients undergoing long zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation (stent length: ≥ 30 mm) for native long coronary lesions (length: ≥ 25 mm). BACKGROUND Restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation remains a significant clinical problem in long coronary lesions. METHODS Patients (n = 499) were assigned randomly to triple (aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol, triple group: n = 250) or dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel and placebo, dual group: n = 249) for 8 months after long zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at the 8-month angiography according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. The in-stent (0.56 ± 0.55 mm vs. 0.68 ± 0.59 mm, p = 0.045) and in-segment (0.32 ± 0.54 mm vs. 0.47 ± 0.54 mm, p = 0.006) late loss were significantly lower in the triple versus dual group, as were 8-month in-stent restenosis (10.8% vs. 19.1%, p = 0.016), in-segment restenosis (12.2% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.028), and 12-month ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization (5.2% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.042) rates. At 12 months, major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization tended to be lower in the triple group than the dual group (7.2% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.07). Percent intimal hyperplasia volume by volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis was reduced from 27.1 ± 13.2% for the dual group to 22.1 ± 9.9% for the triple group (p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS Patients receiving triple antiplatelet therapy after long zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation had decreased extent of late luminal loss, percent intimal hyperplasia volume, and angiographic restenosis, resulting in a reduced risk of 12-month target lesion revascularization compared with patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. (Triple Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after ABT578-Eluting Stent; NCT00589927).

Incidence and predictors of recurrent restenosis following implantation of drug-eluting stents for in-stent restenosis.

Objectives: We investigated the incidence and predictors of recurrent restenosis after drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation for in‐stent restenosis (ISR) in routine clinical practice. Background: Although DESs have been increasingly used for treatment of ISR, little is known about the predictors of DES failure. Methods: We determined the incidence of recurrent restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in 224 consecutive patients with 239 lesions treated with sirolimus‐eluting (n = 217 lesions) or paclitaxel‐eluting (n = 22 lesions) stents for the first episode of ISR. Results: The procedural success rate was 99.2%, and in‐hospital complications did not occur in any patient. Follow‐up angiography at 6 months was obtained in 73.7% of patients. Angiographic re‐restenosis rate was 12.6%, and target lesion revascularization was required in 7.6% of patients. Of the 22 incidents of re‐restenosis, 15 were focal (68.2%), 5 were diffuse (22.7%), and 2 were total (9.1%) restenosis. Univariate analysis showed that lesion length, use of paclitaxel‐eluting stent, and number of stents per lesion were significant predictors of re‐restenosis. In multivariate analysis, however, lesion length and use of paclitaxel‐eluting stent were independent predictors of re‐restenosis. During the follow‐up (mean, 18.3 ± 8.1 months), there were 4 deaths (1 cardiac, 3 noncardiac), but no nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MIs). MACE occurred in 18 patients. The cumulative probability of MACE‐free survival was 92.9 ± 1.8% at 1 year and 90.5 ± 2.4% at 2 years. Conclusions: DESs are highly effective for treatment of ISR, with recurrent restenosis related to lesion length and type of DES.

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus (ESSENCE-DIABETES)Clinical Perspective: Results From the ESSENCE-DIABETES Trial

Background— Drug-eluting stents significantly improved angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare metal stents in diabetic patients. However, a comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients has not been evaluated. Therefore we compared effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results— This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared everolimus-eluting stent (n=149) and sirolimus-eluting stent (n=151) implantation in diabetic patients. The primary end point was noninferiority of angiographic in-segment late loss at 8 months. Clinical events were also monitored for at least 12 months. Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for 8-month in-segment late loss (0.23±0.27 versus 0.37±0.52 mm; difference, −0.13 mm; 95% confidence interval, −0.25 to −0.02; upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval, −0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority), with reductions in in-stent restenosis (0% versus 4.7%; P=0.029) and in-segment restenosis (0.9% versus 6.5%; P=0.035). However, in-stent late loss (0.11±0.26 versus 0.20±0.49 mm; P=0.114) was not statistically different between the 2 groups. At 12 months, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (0.7% versus 2.6%; P=0.317), death (1.3% versus 3.3%; P=0.448), and myocardial infarction (0% versus 1.3%; P=0.498) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.0% versus 5.3%; P=0.218), were also not statistically different between the 2 groups. Conclusions— Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in reducing in-segment late loss and reduced angiographic restenosis at 8 months in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00997763.

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus (ESSENCE-DIABETES)Clinical Perspective

Background— Drug-eluting stents significantly improved angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare metal stents in diabetic patients. However, a comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients has not been evaluated. Therefore we compared effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results— This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared everolimus-eluting stent (n=149) and sirolimus-eluting stent (n=151) implantation in diabetic patients. The primary end point was noninferiority of angiographic in-segment late loss at 8 months. Clinical events were also monitored for at least 12 months. Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for 8-month in-segment late loss (0.23±0.27 versus 0.37±0.52 mm; difference, −0.13 mm; 95% confidence interval, −0.25 to −0.02; upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval, −0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority), with reductions in in-stent restenosis (0% versus 4.7%; P=0.029) and in-segment restenosis (0.9% versus 6.5%; P=0.035). However, in-stent late loss (0.11±0.26 versus 0.20±0.49 mm; P=0.114) was not statistically different between the 2 groups. At 12 months, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (0.7% versus 2.6%; P=0.317), death (1.3% versus 3.3%; P=0.448), and myocardial infarction (0% versus 1.3%; P=0.498) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.0% versus 5.3%; P=0.218), were also not statistically different between the 2 groups. Conclusions— Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in reducing in-segment late loss and reduced angiographic restenosis at 8 months in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00997763.