JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004; 44:967-971, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.05.058
© 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Iakovou, I.
Right arrow Articles by Colombo, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Iakovou, I.
Right arrow Articles by Colombo, A.

CLINICAL RESEARCH: INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY

Clinical and angiographic outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in aorto-ostial lesions

Ioannis Iakovou, MD*, Lei Ge, MD*, Iassen Michev, MD{dagger}, Giuseppe M. Sangiorgi, MD*, Matteo Montorfano, MD{dagger}, Flavio Airoldi, MD{dagger}, Alaide Chieffo, MD{dagger}, Goran Stankovic, MD*, Giancarlo Vitrella, MD{dagger}, Mauro Carlino, MD{dagger}, Nicola Corvaja, MD*, Carlo Briguori, MD{dagger} and Antonio Colombo, MD*,*

* Centro Cuore Columbus
{dagger} San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy

Manuscript received April 9, 2004; revised manuscript received May 10, 2004, accepted May 18, 2004.

* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Antonio Colombo, EMO Centro Cuore Columbus, 48 Via M. Buonarroti, 20145 Milan, Italy (Email: info{at}emocolumbus.it).


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
OBJECTIVES: This observational study evaluated the clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients with aorto-ostial coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) or with bare metal stents (BMSs).

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of SESs for the treatment of aorto-ostial lesions have not been demonstrated.

METHODS: We identified 82 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions in 82 aorto-ostial lesions using the SES (32 patients) or BMS (50 patients) and compared the two groups of patients. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death or Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were recorded in-hospital and at a 10-month follow-up.

RESULTS: All stents were implanted successfully. There were no statisticallysignificant differences regarding major in-hospital complications between the two groups. At 10-month follow-up, two (6.3%) patients in the SES group and 14 (28%) patients in the BMS group underwent TLR (p = 0.01); MACE were less frequent in the SES group compared to the BMS group (19% vs. 44%, p = 0.02). Angiographic follow-up showed lower binary restenosis rates (11% vs. 51%, p = 0.001) and smaller late loss (0.21 ± 0.31 mm vs. 2.06 ± 1.37 mm, p < 0.0001) in the SES group.

CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of our study is that, compared to the BMS, implantation of the SES in aorto-ostial lesions appears safe and effective, with no increase in major in-hospital complications and a significant improvement in restenosis and late event rates at 10-month follow-up.

Abbreviations and Acronyms
  BMS = bare metal stent
  DS = diameter stenosis
  MACE = major adverse cardiac events
  MI = myocardial infarction
  MLD = minimal lumen diameter
  PTFE = polytetrafluoroethylene
  SES = sirolimus-eluting stent
  TLR = target lesion revascularization
  TVR = target vessel revascularization

Previous studies with bare metal stents (BMSs) showed that aorto-ostial lesions have higher restenosis rates than non–aorto-ostial lesions (1–4). Traditionally, the presence of an aorto-ostial stenosis poses a special management problem for the interventionalist in that ostial lesions are the most likely to be associated with suboptimal angiographic results due to lesion rigidity and recoil (1,2,4,5). Although stents provide adequate scaffolding to prevent recoil, in-stent restenosis is mainly due to neointimal hyperplasia. Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) (Cypher, Cordis/Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) have been shown to reduce neointimal hyperplasia and risk of restenosis (6,7). However, the issue of SES implantation in aorto-ostial lesions has not been adequately evaluated, because these patients were excluded or minimally represented in the multicenter randomized trials versus patients treated with BMSs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the SES implantation in aorto-ostial lesions.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
We evaluated retrospectively 32 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions in 32 aorto-ostial lesions using the SES between April 2002 and March 2003. A control group for comparison was composed of 50 consecutive patients who underwent treatment of aorto-ostial lesions (50 lesions) with the BMS during the period immediately before the introduction of the SES. The following BMSs were used: BX Sonic or BX Velocity (Cordis/Johnson & Johnson) in 28%; JoMed polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stent (JoMed, Rangendingen, Germany) in 14%; Multi-Link Penta (Guidant Corp., Santa Clara, California) in 10%; Diamond-Flex (Phytis, Dreieich, Germany) in 10%; Multi-Link Tetra (Guidant Corp.) in 5%; Sorin Carbon (Sorin Biomedica, Saluggia, Italy) in 8%; and other stents in 27%.

All patients were pre-treated with ticlopidine or clopidogrel and aspirin at least three days before the procedure; a loading dose of 300 mg clopidogrel was administered to those who were not pre-treated. Aspirin was continued indefinitely and clopidogrel or ticlopidine for at least three months after SES and for one month following BMS implantation. Stent implantation methods have been described previously (8). All stents were implanted with high-pressure (>12 atm) final balloon dilatation with an attempt to fully cover the angiographic lesion and to ensure complete stent apposition.

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were administered at the operator’s discretion.

Angiographic analysis.   Cineangiograms were analyzed using a validated edge detection system (Version 5.2, CMS, MEDIS, The Netherlands). Standard qualitative and quantitative definitions and measurements were used. Using the contrast-filled catheter as the calibration standard, minimal lumen diameter (MLD), reference diameter, and percent diameter stenosis (DS) before and after coronary intervention were obtained from the single "worst" and least foreshortened view. Aorto-ostial lesions were defined as lesions involving the junction between the aorta and the orifice of the right coronary artery, left main, or a saphenous vein graft within 3 mm of the vessel ostia.

Angiographic success was defined as a final residual stenosis less than 30%. Angiographic restenosis was defined as >50% DS by quantitative coronary angiography within a previously stented vessel segment. Late lumen loss was defined as the difference between the MLD at the completion of the stenting procedure and that measured at follow-up. These are standard qualitative and quantitative analyses and definitions, and they have been published previously (9).

Clinical definitions and follow-up
Pre-specified clinical and laboratory demographic information was obtained from hospital charts that were reviewed by independent research personnel; data were entered prospectively into a dedicated database. Standard definitions included: 1) Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI): the presence of new pathological Q waves in the electrocardiogram associated with an elevation of cardiac enzyme ≥2 times the upper normal value, and 2) non–Q-wave MI: creatine kinase-MB enzyme elevation ≥3 times the upper normal value without new Q waves.

Clinical follow-up was performed by either telephone contact or office visit. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were recorded, including death (all-cause), Q-wave MI, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (whether percutaneous or surgical).

Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, version 11 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). Continuous variables are expressed as mean ±1 SD and categorical variables as frequency (%). Continuous variables were compared using independent samples t test. Categorical variables were compared with chi-square statistics.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
Baseline patient and lesion characteristics.   The baseline clinical and lesion characteristics of the patient population were similar between the two groups, except for a higher incidence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia and alower mean ejection fraction in the SES group (Table 1). Patients with the BMS had a trend toward higher incidence of unstable angina. Out of the 20 left main coronary artery lesions, 9 (45%) were unprotected; 5 in the SES and 4 in the BMS group.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Baseline Clinical and Angiographic Characteristics
 
Procedural data and in-hospital outcome
The procedural data and in-hospital outcome are shown in Table 2. All stents were deployed successfully. The SES group, compared to the BMS, had a smaller mean maximum balloon diameter (3.50 vs. 3.82 mm, p = 0.003) and a longer mean stent length per lesion (24.81 vs. 13.71 mm, p < 0.0001).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Procedural Data and In-Hospital Outcome
 
There were no statistically significantdifferences regarding procedural and major in-hospital complications. All procedures except one (2%) of the BMS group resulted in Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 3. Therewere no cases of acute stent thrombosis, perforations, or residual dissections. One (3.1%) patient in the SES group suffered a nonfatal, in-hospital Q-wave MI. Non–Q-wave MI occurred in three (9.3%) SES patients compared to seven (14%) of the BMS group (p = 0.7).

Clinical outcome
One-month follow-up was available in all patients, and no additional events (including subacute thrombosis) were recorded (data not shown). Ten-month cumulative clinical follow-up was available in all patients and is shown in Figure 1. Patients with the SES had lower TLR compared to patients with the BMS (6.3% vs. 28%, p = 0.03). One patient of the SES group suffered late-stent thrombosis presented as an acute MI and died four months post-procedure after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. There was a trend toward less frequent TVR in the SES group (16% vs. 34%, p = 0.06). In addition, the incidence of 10-month MACE was significantly lower in the SES compared to the BMS group (19% vs. 44%, p = 0.02).



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1 Cumulative clinical outcome at 10-month follow-up. Black bars = bare metal stent; lined bars = sirolimus-eluting stent. MACE = major adverse cardiac events; MI = myocardial infarction; TLR = target lesion revascularization; TVR = target vessel revascularization.

 
Quantitative coronary angiography
Quantitative coronary angiographic analysis is shown in Table 3. The mean reference vessel diameter was 3.17 mm for the SES and 3.47 mm for the BMS group (p = 0.1). The SES group had a trend (p = 0.07) toward smaller MLD compared to the BMS group. Post-intervention reference vessel diameter and MLD were significantly larger in the BMS group.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Quantitative Coronary Angiography at Baseline, After Intervention, and at Follow-Up
 
Angiographic follow-up was available in 88% of the SES patients versus 70% of the BMS patients (p = 0.1). The mean time to angiographic follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (7.4 vs. 6.3 months, p = 0.08). The rate of restenosis for the lesions treated with PTFE stents was 50% (three of six lesions with available angiographic follow-up) and did not differ significantly from the restenosis rate of the other stents of the BMS group (52%, p = 0.7). Binary restenosis occurred less frequently in the SES group (11% vs. 51%, p = 0.001). All three restenotic lesions in the SES group were focal (≤10 mm in length). Conversely, only 9 (50%) of the 18 restenotic lesions in the BMS group were focal. In addition, late loss was significantly smaller in the SES compared to the BMS group (0.21 ± 0.31 mm vs. 2.06 ± 1.37 mm, p < 0.0001).


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusions
 References
 
The main finding of our study is that, compared to the BMS, implantation of the SES in aorto-ostial lesions appears safe and effective, with no increase in major in-hospital complications and a significant improvement in restenosis and late event rates at 10-month follow-up.

The findings of the current study are similar to the results of the major drug-eluting stent randomized trials, which invariably showed dramatic decrease in restenosis rates with the use of the SES (6,7). As expected, late loss in the SES group was significantly smaller compared to the BMS group. However, the mean late loss of 0.21 mm was slightly larger than the respective values of the landmark randomized trials of the SES versus the BMS. More specifically, the mean late loss was –0.01 mm in the RAVEL (Randomized study with the sirolimus-eluting Bx VELocity balloon-expandable stent) and 0.17 mm in the SIRIUS (A U.S. multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of the SIRolImUS-eluting stent in de novo native coronary lesions) (6,7). Lesion rigidity might be a possible explanation for this finding. Histologic data from pathologic series (10) and atherectomy specimens (11) showed that ostial lesions are frequently heavily calcified, fibrotic, and sclerotic. It has also been suggested that there may be more elastic recoil even after stent implantation at ostial sites because of the highly elastic tissue in the adjacent aortic wall (1,10). Therefore, stenting at ostial site may respond differently than other segments of the coronary artery. Furthermore, the nonavailability of 3.5-mm SES (seven-cell stent) in our center at the time of patient enrollment for the present study may have resulted in a slight mismatch of the vessel size and the stent diameter and thus to stent overexpansion or less homogeneous drug distribution in the SES group.

In our study, the SES group had significantly smaller post-intervention MLD compared to the BMS group; thus it consisted of lesions more prone to restenosis. Furthermore, 38% of the SES lesions were restenotic compared to 22% of the BMS lesions (p = 0.2). The discrepancy in the SES group between the TLR rate of 6.3% and the TVR rate of 16% is due to treatment of other lesions distal to the stented segments which were not stented at the time of the index procedure.

Study limitations.   The major limitations of this study are the small sample size, the different percentages of angiographic follow-up in the two groups, and some imbalance in risk factors for restenosis. The lack of randomization is a problem difficult to solve in view of the proven efficacy of drug-eluting stents. The discrepancy in angiographic follow-up between the two groups (88% for SES vs. 70% for BMS) might have skewed the results in favor of the BMS group, because it is well known that angiographic follow-up triggers repeat interventions (12). However, this difference was statistically significant,nor was the difference in the mean time to angiographic follow-up (7.4 ± 3.0 months vs. 6.3 ± 2.7 months, p = 0.08 for SES and BMS, respectively). It is worth noting that the majority of the patients who had restenosis were symptomatic or had evidence of ischemia (72% of the BMS vs. 67% of the SES group, p = 0.6). Among the variables affecting restenosis, diabetes and unstable angina were present more frequently in the BMS group, whereas other lesion variables associated with restenosis were slightly more frequent in the SES group.


   Conclusions
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
References
 
The main finding of our study is that, compared to the BMS, implantation of the SES in aorto-ostial lesions appears safe and effective, with no increase in major in-hospital complications and a significant improvement in restenosis and late event rates at 10-month follow-up.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 

  1. Chin K. An approach to ostial lesion management Curr Interv Cardiol Rep 2001;3:87-89.[Medline]
  2. Toutouzas K, Stankovic G, Takagi T, et al. Outcome of treatment of aorto-ostial lesions involving the right coronary artery or a saphenous vein graft with a polytetrafluoroethylene- covered stent Am J Cardiol 2002;90:63-66.[Medline]
  3. Moussa I, Moses J, Di Mario C, et al. Stenting after optimal lesion debulking (sold) registry. Angiographic and clinical outcome Circulation 1998;98:1604-1609.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Mehran R, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors of angiographic restenosis in lesions treated with Palmaz-Schatz stents J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31:43-49.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Zampieri P, Colombo A, Almagor Y, Maiello L, Finci L. Results of coronary stenting of ostial lesions Am J Cardiol 1994;73:901-903.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery N Engl J Med 2003;349:1315-1323.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization N Engl J Med 2002;346:1773-1780.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Colombo A, Tobis J. Techniques in Coronary Artery StentingLondon: Martin Dunitz Publishers; 2000.
  9. Lansky AJ, Dangas G, Mehran R, et al. Quantitative angiographic methods for appropriate end-point analysis, edge-effect evaluation, and prediction of recurrent restenosis after coronary brachytherapy with gamma irradiation J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:274-280.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Stewart JT, Ward DE, Davies MJ, Pepper JR. Isolated coronary ostial stenosisobservations on the pathology. Eur Heart J 1987;8:917-920.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Popma JJ, Dick RJ, Haudenschild CC, Topol EJ, Ellis SG. Atherectomy of right coronary ostial stenosesinitial and long-term results, technical features and histologic findings. Am J Cardiol 1991;67:431-433.[Medline]
  12. Cutlip DE, Chauhan MS, Baim DS, et al. Clinical restenosis after coronary stentingperspectives from multicenter clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:2082-2089.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
H. Kelbaek, L. Thuesen, S. Helqvist, L. Klovgaard, E. Jorgensen, S. Aljabbari, K. Saunamaki, L. R. Krusell, G. V.H. Jensen, H. E. Botker, et al.
The Stenting Coronary Arteries in Non-stress/benestent Disease (SCANDSTENT) Trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 17, 2006; 47(2): 449 - 455.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
H. Kelbaek, L. Thuesen, S. Helqvist, L. Klovgaard, E. Jorgensen, S. Aljabbari, K. Saunamaki, L. R. Krusell, G. V.H. Jensen, H. E. Botker, et al.
The Stenting Coronary Arteries in Non-stress/benestent Disease (SCANDSTENT) Trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 13, 2005; (2005) j.jacc.2005.10.045v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
I. Iakovou, L. Ge, and A. Colombo
Contemporary Stent Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 18, 2005; 46(8): 1446 - 1455.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
K.-B. Seung, Y.-H. Kim, D.-W. Park, B.-K. Lee, C. W. Lee, M.-K. Hong, P.-J. Kim, W.-S. Chung, S.-J. Tahk, S.-W. Park, et al.
Effectiveness of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for the Treatment of Ostial Left Anterior Descending Artery Stenosis With Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 6, 2005; 46(5): 787 - 792.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
I. Iakovou, T. Schmidt, E. Bonizzoni, L. Ge, G. M. Sangiorgi, G. Stankovic, F. Airoldi, A. Chieffo, M. Montorfano, M. Carlino, et al.
Incidence, Predictors, and Outcome of Thrombosis After Successful Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stents
JAMA, May 4, 2005; 293(17): 2126 - 2130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
W. W. O'Neill, S. R. Dixon, and C. L. Grines
The year in interventional cardiology
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 5, 2005; 45(7): 1117 - 1134.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
A. N. DeMaria, O. Ben-Yehuda, D. Berman, G. K. Feld, B. H. Greenberg, J. D. Knoke, K. U. Knowlton, W. Y.W. Lew, J. Narula, D. Sahn, et al.
Highlights of the year in JACC 2004
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 4, 2005; 45(1): 137 - 153.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Iakovou, I.
Right arrow Articles by Colombo, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Iakovou, I.
Right arrow Articles by Colombo, A.

HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK