Min Yao

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Method of Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Comparison of Procedural and Late-Term Outcomes

OBJECTIVESnThis study intended to compare outcomes between transradial (TR) and transfemoral (TF) percutaneous revascularization in high-risk coronary anatomy.nnnBACKGROUNDnThe feasibility, efficacy and safety between TR and TF methods of percutaneous coronary revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery (UPLM]) disease have not been compared.nnnMETHODSnAmong 821 consecutive patients with UPLM disease treated with percutaneous revascularization by either TR (n = 353) or TF (n = 468) vascular access, procedural outcomes, resource use, in-hospital bleeding, and late clinical events were compared according to vascular access method.nnnRESULTSnClinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups, except that TR patients less commonly presented with unstable angina and had less UPLM bifurcation disease requiring treatment with 2 stents. No significant differences were observed between TR and TF methods for procedural success (97% TF vs. 96% TR, p = 0.57) or total procedural time. However, duration of hospital stay and in-hospital occurrence of Thrombosis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding (0.6% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.02) were significantly lower with TR access. Using propensity score modeling (254 matched pairs), over a mean follow-up period of 17 months, rates of cardiovascular death (1.2% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.48), nonfatal myocardial infarction (4.7% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.16), stent thrombosis (0.8% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.10) and any target vessel revascularization (6.0% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.72) did not statistically differ among TR and TF groups, respectively.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn contrast to TF vascular access, TR percutaneous coronary revascularization for UPLM disease is feasible and associated with similar procedural success, abbreviated hospitalization, reduced bleeding, and comparable late-term clinical safety and efficacy.

Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of ostial coronary lesions: comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent with paclitaxel-eluting stent.

BackgroundTreatment of ostial coronary lesions represents a challenge for interventional cardiologists. The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) has been demonstrated as improving the outcomes of patients in a few studies. It is not known, however, which DES, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), is superior for the treatment of ostial lesions. MethodsIn this retrospective study, 95 consecutive patients with de-novo ostial lesions underwent coronary SES (n=47, lesions=48) or PES implantation (n=45, lesions=47), and quantitative coronary analysis was performed at the time of stent implantation and subsequently at 8 months post stenting. Ostial lesion was defined as ≥50% diameter stenosis rising within 3u2009mm of either left anterior descending coronary artery or left circumflex artery or right coronary artery measured by quantitative coronary analysis. Major adverse cardiac events including death, thrombosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization were compared between the two groups. ResultsBaseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. At 8 months clinical and angiographic follow-up, overall major adverse cardiac events and target lesion revascularization rates were similar in both groups (6.4 vs. 11.2%, P=0.184; 4.3 vs. 8.9%, P=0.170, respectively). The in-stent and in-segment restenosis were, however, significantly higher in PES group compared with SES group (15.5 vs. 0%, P=0.001; 22.2 vs. 4.3%, P=0.003). Similarly, the late loss in both in-stent and in-segment was significantly higher in the PES group than in SES group (0.65±0.67 vs. 0.16±0.18u2009mm; 0.68±0.65 vs. 0.15±0.12u2009mm; P<0.001, respectively). ConclusionIn this small sample-size, nonrandomized, and nonprospective study, the data indicated that implantation of DES appears safe and effective for the treatment of patients with de-novo ostial coronary lesions, but SES implantation showed more favorable results in respect of restenosis compared with PES implantation.

Is there delayed restenosis in patients with coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stent?

BackgroundAlthough long-term follow-up after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation shows a sustained clinical benefit in several randomized and registered trials, little is known about the pattern of neointimal growth beyond the first 6 to 9 months. In this study, we therefore evaluated the possible delayed restenosis in patients with coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stent. MethodsA total of consecutive 333 patients with 453 lesions were enrolled in this study (among 782 consecutive patients with 1023 lesions). Lesions were subjected to follow-up by quantitative coronary angiography, and patients were divided into two groups according to the time of follow-up by quantitative coronary angiography: early group (≤270 days, n=270 with 369 lesions) and late group (>270 days, n=63 with 84 lesions). Binary restenosis was defined as stenosis of more than 50% of the lumen diameter in the target lesion. ResultsBaseline clinical, demographic or angiographic characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. The in-stent restenosis rate was not significant between the early group and the late group (3.5 vs. 6.0%; P>0.05). The late loss and target lesion revascularization appeared higher in late group but there were no significant differences (0.15±0.38u2009mm vs. 0.24±0.44u2009mm; and 4.9 vs. 9.5%, P>0.05, respectively). Similarly, overall thrombosis rate was also same in both groups. In-segment restenosis was, however, higher in late group compared with that in early group (7.9 vs. 16.7%, P=0.013). ConclusionIn this unrestricted population, the beneficial effects of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation extend out more than 1 year in real world practice, that has been confirmed by the results of the large randomized clinical trials. The late in-segment restenosis could, however, be found, suggesting that a prolonged clinical and angiographic surveillance in this subset of patients seems to be warranted.

Impact of Body Mass Index on the Clinical Outcomes after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients ≥75 Years Old

Background: The impact of body mass index (BMI) on the clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients ≥75 years old remained unclear. Methods: A total of 1098 elderly patients undergoing PCI with stent implantation were recruited. Patients were divided into four groups by the value of BMI: Underweight (⩽20.0 kg/m2), normal weight (20.0–24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2) and obese (≥30.0 kg/m2). Major clinical outcomes after PCI were compared between the groups. The primary endpoint was defined as in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), which included death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularization. The secondary endpoint was defined as 1 year death. Logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for the potential confounders. Results: Totally, 1077 elderly patients with available BMIs were included in the analysis. Patients of underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese accounted for 5.6%, 45.4%, 41.5% and 7.5% of the population, respectively. Underweight patients were more likely to attract ST-segment elevation MI, and get accompanied with anemia or renal dysfunction. Meanwhile, they were less likely to achieve thrombolysis in MI 3 grade flow after PCI, and receive beta-blocker, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker after discharge. In underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese patients, in-hospital MACE were 1.7%, 2.7%, 3.8%, and 3.7% respectively (P = 0.68), and 1 year mortality rates were 5.0%, 3.9%, 5.1% and 3.7% (P = 0.80), without significant difference between the groups. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the value of BMI was not associated with in-hospital MACE in patients at 75 years old. Conclusions: The BMI “obese paradox” was not found in patients ≥75 years old. It was suggested that BMI may not be a sensitive predictor of adverse cardiovascular events in elderly patients.

Treatment of mild-moderate calcified coronary lesions with sirolimus-eluting stent: real world data from a single center.

BackgroundCalcified coronary lesions have commonly been considered as a challenge for interventional cardiologists, and few previous studies of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) for calcified lesion have been limited by small sample size. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of SES implantation for the treatment of calcified lesions in a large Chinese cohort of real world practice. MethodsA total of 956 consecutive patients who successfully received SES placement were enrolled in this study, and were divided into the two groups according to whether the mild–moderate calcified lesion treated with SES exists or not: noncalcified group (nu2009=u2009637) and calcified group (nu2009=u2009319). Lesions treated with SES were subjected to quantitative coronary angiography immediately and 8 months after stenting. ResultsBaseline characteristics including clinical, demographic or angiographic data were well balanced between the noncalcified and calcified groups. In the angiographic follow-up at 8 months, the in-stent restenosis and in-segment restenosis rates were similar in both the groups (in-stent restenosis: 3.8 vs. 4.0%, P>0.05; in-segment restenosis: 8.5 vs. 9.7%, P>0.05). The target lesion revascularization was not different between the two groups (5.2 vs. 6.8%; P>0.05). In addition, the in-stent late loss and overall thrombosis rate were also similar in both the groups (0.17±0.41 vs. 0.18±0.35u2009mm and 1.8 vs. 1.8%, P>0.05, respectively). ConclusionAlthough stenting of the calcified lesion was hard, successful treatment with SES for mild–moderate calcified lesions was conferred to similar favorable results compared with noncalcified lesions in patients with coronary artery disease.

A Comparison of Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Elderly Patients Based on a Propensity Score Analysis

The transradial approach (TRA) has been used as access site for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for years. However, no large sample study has evaluated the effect of TRA in elderly patients. A total of 1098 elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) who underwent PCI by TRA or transfemoral approach were recruited. A 1:1 matched propensity score analysis was performed to minimize bias. The rates of major adverse cardiovascular events that included death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization during hospitalization (1.3% vs 6.6%, P = .014) and at 1-year follow-up (6.0% vs 13.9%, P = .019) were significantly lower in the TRA group. Transradial approach was also associated with lower rates of in-hospital MI (1.3% vs 5.3%, P = .046), access-site complications (3.3% vs 9.9%, P = .018), and major bleeding (1.3% vs 5.3%, P = .046). In conclusion, TRA showed better safety in elderly patients; it should be considered as a preferred route for elderly patients.

Short- and long-term outcomes of single bare metal stent versus drug eluting stent in nondiabetic patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel

ObjectiveThis study was aimed to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between single bare metal stent (BMS) and single drug eluting stent (DES) in nondiabetic patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel.MethodsTwo hundred and thirty-five consecutive patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel were treated with BMS or DES in our hospital from Apr. 2004 to Dec. 2004.The inclusion criteria: a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel, stent diameter ≥ 3.0 mm, stent length ≤ 18 mm, the exclusion criteria: diabetes mellitus, left main trunk disease and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 30%. Of them, there were 150 patients in BMS group and 85 patients in DES group, and the rates of lost to follow up were 6.7% and 1.2% respectively.ResultsBMS group had lower hypercholesteremia rate (22.0% vs 38.8%) and higher proportion of TIMI grade 0 (12% vs 1.2%) than DES group (all P < 0.05), but both groups had similar stent length (16.16 ± 2.81 mm vs 16.06 ± 2.46 mm) and stent diameter (3.85 ± 3.07 mm vs 3.19 ± 0.24 mm) after procedure, in-segment restenosis rate (0% vs 1.2%) and target lesion revascularization (TLR, 2.0% vs 2.4%) at 6-month follow-up (all P > 0.05). No difference was found in TLR (1.3% vs 1.2%, P = 1.00) and recurrent myocardial infarction (Re-MI) (0% vs 1.2%, P = 0.36), cardiac death (0.7% vs 1.2%, P = 1.00) between 1- and 3-year. So were TLR (6.0% vs 5.9%, P = 0.97), Re-MI (0% vs 2.4%, P = 0.06), cardiac death (2.0% vs 3.5%, P = 0.48) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, 8.7% vs 10.6%, P = 0.63), cardiac death-free cumulative survival (98.7% vs 97.7%, P = 0.56), TLR-free cumulative survival (94.0% vs 94.1%, P = 0.98) and Re-MI-free cumulative survival (100% vs 97.7%, P = 0.06) at 3-year follow-up.ConclusionThe single BMS has similar efficacy and safety to single DES in nondiabetic patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel at short- and long-term follow-up.

A Comparison of the Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches for the Angiography and Intervention in Patients with a History of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: In-hospital and 1-year Follow-up Results

Background:Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) through transradial approach (TRA) has shown to be safe and effective as transfemoral approach (TFA) among unselected patients. However, very few studies have compared the outcomes between TRA and TFA specifically in patients with a history of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). Methods:A total of 404 post-CABG patients who had undergone angiography or PCI were included in the study. The primary endpoint was defined as angiographic success and procedure success. The secondary endpoint was defined as in-hospital net adverse clinical events (NACEs), which included all cause of death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, repeat revascularization, and major bleeding. Patients were followed-up for 1-year. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), which included death, MI, and repeat revascularization, at 1-year follow-up were also compared. Results:The angiographic success was reached by 97.4% in the TRA group compared with 100% in the TFA group (P = 0.02). The procedure success was achieved in 99.1% in the TRA group and 97.9% in the TFA group (P = 0.68). The incidence rates of in-hospital NACE (2.7% vs. 2.7%, P = 1.00) and 1-year MACE (11.5% vs. 12.0%, P = 0.88) were similar between TRA and TFA. Meanwhile, TRA was associated with a lower rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥2 bleeding (P = 0.02). In patients undergoing graft PCI, the procedure success was similar between TRA and TFA (100.0% vs. 98.7%, P = 1.00). The procedure time (25.0 min vs. 27.5 min, P = 0.53) was also similar. No significant difference was detected between TRA and TFA in terms of in-hospital NACE (0 vs. 0, P = 1.00) and 1-year MACE (21.4% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.19). Conclusions:Compared with TFA, TRA had lower angiographic success but had a similar procedure success in post-CABG patients. TRA was also associated with decreased bleeding and shortened hospital stay.

Comparison of procedural and long-term outcomes between transradial and transfemoral approach in one-stage intervention for triple vessel coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVESnThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, procedural, and long-term outcomes by the transradial (TR) approach as compared to transfemoral (TF) approach in patients with triple vessel coronary artery disease undergoing one-stage percutaneous coronary intervention.nnnBACKGROUNDnThe feasibility, safety, and efficacy between the TR and TF approach for coronary interventional treatment have been compared in some complex situations including AMI and unprotected left main disease. However, in terms of triple vessel disease (3VD) intervention, there has been no comparison regarding procedural and long-term outcomes between the TR and TF approach.nnnMETHODSnA total of 4,974 consecutive patients (TR nu2009=u20093,856, TF nu2009=u20091,118), who were diagnosed with 3VD without LM disease and underwent one-stage percutaneous revascularization, were enrolled in the study. Procedural results and clinical outcomes were obtained through database and follow-up. We used the propensity score matching method and obtained 930 pairs of patients with comparable baseline data in order to compare the procedural and long-term outcome between TR and TF groups. In the study cohort, risk reduction of all the clinical outcomes were evaluated with Coxs proportional-hazards models. Cumulative incidences concerning safety and efficacy of the cohort were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and a comparison was made utilizing the log-rank test.nnnRESULTSnAfter propensity score matching, the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Regarding procedural results, no significant differences were observed between the 2 groups, with the exception of a decreased hospital stay (TR 7.49u2009±u20094.46 days vs. TF 8.63u2009±u20096.23 days, Pu2009<u20090.0001) and fewer bleedings (TR 1.0% vs. TF 2.9, Pu2009=u20090.003) in the TRI group. After an average 21-month follow-up, the all-cause mortality (TR 1.7% vs. TF 4.2%, Pu2009=u20090.0014; HR 0.44, 0.25-0.79) was significantly lower with TRI patients. Other clinical outcomes were comparable between the 2 groups.nnnCONCLUSIONSnAs compared to TFI, TRI for 3VD intervention is feasible, safe, and associated with similar procedural success, shorter hospitalization, reduced bleeding, lower incidence of death, and comparable long-term efficacy.

Comparison of Short- and Medium-Term Clinical Outcomes between Transradial Approach and Transfemoral Approach in a High-Volume PCI Heart Center in China

Background Transradial approach (TRA) outweighed transfemoral approach (TFA) in acute coronary syndrome patients because the former has better short-term outcomes in high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centers. Our study was one of the limited studies specifically in comparing the short- and medium-term effects of TRA and those of TFA in patients undergoing elective PCIs. Methods A total of 21,242 patients who underwent elective PCI with stent implantation were included. Using propensity score methodology, 1,634 patient pairs were matched. Major clinical outcomes and PCI-related complications between TRA and TFA were compared. Results In the propensity score-matched patients, the rates of in-hospital net adverse clinical events, which included death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stroke, and major bleeding, were much lower with TRA than with TFA (1.8% vs. 3.9%, P < 0.001). This difference was mainly due to the lower rate of major bleeding (0.6% vs. 1.8%, P < 0.001) and the decreased rate of MI (1.1% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.060). PCI-related dissection and thrombosis were similar between the TRA and TFA groups (both P > 0.05). Meanwhile, one-year incidence rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, which included death, MI, and TVR, were also similar (4.1% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.272) in TRA and TFA. Multivariable regression analyses showed that TRA was an independent predictor of the low rate of in-hospital net adverse clinical events (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.71), but not of major adverse cardiovascular events at one-year follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.06). Conclusions In patients undergoing elective PCI, TRA patients had lower rates of in-hospital net adverse clinical outcomes compared with TFA patients. TRA might be recommended as a routine approach in high-volume PCI hospitals for elective PCIs.