An Unexpected Cause of Very Late Stent Thrombosis

Aim : The aim of this study is to compare the 4 years safety and durability of Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and Paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) deployment on the outcome of patients with very long coronary lesions (VLL). Methods : A prospective analysis of 656 patients 730 lesions (male 70.4%, mean age 66.9 yrs) with very long coronary lesion (≥40mm) (368 SES and 288 PES) in five high volume Asian centers after successful stenting in VLL was performed. Lesion locations of VLL were LAD 48.2% (SES 50.2%, PES 45.7%), LCX 18.5%, RCA 33.3%. Complete clinical follow-up to 4 years is being analyzed for all patients. Results : The baseline clinical characteristics between 2 groups were similar. At 4 years overall cardiac events of SES (16.3%) were lower than PES (24.0%) (p=0.03). See table for clinical results. Conclusion : The use of SES and PES in patients with very long coronary lesion was safe and feasible with low acute complication and low incidence of restenosis. SES showed lesser incidence of cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, CABG and PCI) at 4 years clinical follow-up. SAT (sub acute stent thrombosis), LAST (late stent thrombosis: ~1year), VLAST (very late stent thrombosis: 1year~ 4years) MACE (death, myocardial infarction, CABG and PCI).

Download Full-text

Everolimus-Eluting versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Thrombosis ◽

10.1155/2012/126369 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 2012 ◽

pp. 1-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Ashraf Alazzoni ◽

Ayman Al-Saleh ◽

Sanjit S. Jolly

Keyword(s):

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽

Stent Thrombosis ◽

Randomized Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Coronary Intervention ◽

Target Vessel ◽

Late Stent Thrombosis ◽

Very Late Stent Thrombosis ◽

Target Vessel Revascularization ◽

Percutaneous Coronary

Background. Individual randomized trials have suggested that everolimus-eluting stents may have improved clinical outcomes compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents, but individual trials are underpowered to examine outcomes such as mortality and very late stent thrombosis. Methods. Medline, Cochrane, and conference proceedings were searched for randomized trials comparing everolimus versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Results. 6792 patients were included from 4 randomized controlled trials. Stent thrombosis was reduced with everolimus stents versus paclitaxel stents (0.7% versus 2.3%; OR: 0.32; CI: 0.20–0.51; P<0.00001). The reductions in stent thrombosis were observed in (i) early stent thrombosis (within 30 days) (0.2% versus 0.9%; OR: 0.24; P=0.0005), (ii) late (day 31–365) (0.2% versus 0.6%; OR: 0.32; P=0.01), and (iii) very late stent thrombosis (>365 days) (0.2% versus 0.8%; OR: 0.34; P=0.009). The rates of cardiovascular mortality were 1.2% in everolimus group and 1.6% in paclitaxel group (OR: 0.85; P=0.43). Patients receiving everolimus-eluting stents had significantly lower myocardial infarction events and target vessel revascularization as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents. Interpretation. Everolimus compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents reduced the incidence of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis as well as target vessel revascularization.

Download Full-text