J. Airton Arruda

Comparison of direct stenting versus stenting with predilation for the treatment of selected coronary narrowings.

Direct stenting may reduce costs, procedure times, and injury to the vessel wall, positively influencing acute and late results. This study was designed to demonstrate 6-month clinical outcome equivalence between direct and standard stenting techniques. Four hundred eleven patients (425 lesions) were randomized in 7 sites to undergo direct (210 patients, 216 lesions) or conventional (201 patients, 209 lesions) stent implantation. Lesions with severe calcification were excluded. Angiographic success rate was 100% in the direct stent group (2.8% requiring balloon predilation) and 98.6% in the predilation group (p = 0.12). Direct stenting was associated with decreased use of balloons (0.15 vs 1.09 balloons/lesion treated) and with a trend toward a reduction of procedure time (22.7 +/- 15.0 vs 25.6 +/- 18.2 minutes; p = 0.073). Fluoroscopy time and contrast volume were not different between groups. At 6-month follow-up, the incidences of death (direct [1.4%] vs predilation [2.5%]), myocardial infarction (5.3% vs 5.0%), and target vessel revascularization (8.2% vs 10.5%) were similar in both groups. Major adverse cardiac event-free survival rate was 87.5% for those who underwent the direct stent technique and 85.5% for patients who underwent predilation (p = 0.0002 for equivalence). In conclusion, direct stenting is at least equivalent to the standard technique in terms of 6-month clinical outcomes when performed on selected coronary lesions without significant calcification. This strategy is associated with decreased use of balloons, but, in general, does not significantly reduce procedure times.

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.© 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Efficacy and safety of oral sirolimus to inhibit in-stent intimal hyperplasia.

Sirolimus systemic administration has shown marked inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) after balloon angioplasty in porcine models. In this pilot study, we tested the hypothesis that oral sirolimus is safe and effective to inhibit in‐stent NIH and therefore to prevent and treat in‐stent restenosis (ISR). Twelve patients (18 lesions) with high risk for ISR, including 8 ISR lesions, were admitted. One day before the procedure, patients were given a 15 mg loading dose of oral sirolimus, followed by 5 mg daily for 28 days, with weekly whole blood level measurements. The daily dose was adjusted to keep the concentration at 10–15 ng/ml. Sirolimus was well tolerated by all patients but one, who died at the end of the third week of treatment. The 4‐ and 8‐month follow‐up revealed an angiographic late loss of 0.40 ± 0.24 and 0.67 ± 0.45 mm (P < 0.01), respectively. At the same time points, the intravascular ultrasound in in‐stent relative volumetric obstruction was 14.4% ± 9.1% and 23.2% ± 10.1% (P < 0.01), respectively. At 24‐month clinical follow‐up, adverse events were one (8.3%) death, two (11.1%) target lesion, and four (22.2%) target vessel revascularizations. In conclusion, in this small group of high‐risk ISR patients, oral sirolimus inhibited NIH and therefore may be an effective strategy for the prevention and treatment of ISR. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;64:413–418.

Effect of systemic immunosuppression on coronary in-stent intimal hyperplasia in renal transplant patients

Cyclosporin, combined with other agents, is an immunosuppressive agent approved for prophylaxis of renal transplant rejection. In experimental studies, cyclosporin has been shown to inhibit smooth muscle cell proliferation in the vascular response to injury. 1,2 Similar experimental results have been observed with systemic use of rapamycin. 3,4 The aim of this clinical investigation was to test the hypothesis that systemic immunosuppression therapy inhibits in-stent restenosis in renal transplant patients with coronary artery disease treated with stenting.

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.

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

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 years, without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis.