Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The best therapeutic alternative for patients suffering from in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation remains to be elucidated.

Objective: To characterize the pattern, treatment and outcomes of DES[1]-related in-stent restenosis in patients treated at our institution.

Methods: We determined the incidence and major adverse clinical events in 71 consecutive patients with DES failure among 2473 patients who were treated with 2548 drug-eluting stents between 2004 and 2007. We analyzed the clinical data, procedural parameters and clinical outcomes.

Results: The type and number of stents implanted were as follows: Cypher (n=1808), Endeavor (421) and Taxus (319) of these, 53 (2.9%), 10 (2.4%), and 8 (2.5%) patients respectively presented with restenosis. The mean time to restenosis was 11.3 ± 9.9 months. Patients’ mean age was 65 ± 11 years 75% were male, and 68% had diabetes mellitus. Unstable angina was the clinical presentation in 52 (73%). At 6 months, 3 patients had developed myocardial infarction (4.2%), repeat restenosis at follow-up was diagnosed in 8 patients (11.3%), the overall major adverse clinical events rate was 18.3% (13 patients), and 2 patients died (2.8%).

Conclusions: Drug-eluting stent-related restenosis is relatively infrequent but remains a clinical challenge. It occurs more frequently in complex lesion subsets, but the overall intermediate-term prognosis is tolerable.  

[1] DES = drug-eluting stent

The incidence of aortic valve stenosis is growing rapidly in the elderly. Nonetheless, many symptomatic patients are not referred for surgery usually because of high surgical risk. Unfortunately, percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty is unsatisfactory due to high recurrence rates. In 2002, Cribier and colleagues were the first to describe percutaneous aortic valve implantation, opening a new era of aortic stenosis management. In the present review we report a patient treated by this novel method, discuss and assess how it is implanated, report the findings of studies conducted to date, and suggest future directions for percutaneous treatment of aortic valve disease.
 

Background: Although unprotected left main coronary artery disease is considered by contemporary guidelines to be an indication for surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention may be necessary in patients at high surgical risk.

Objectives: To assess the outcome of angioplasty in the treatment of unprotected LMCA[1] disease.

Methods: Angiographic and clinical data were collected prospectively for all patients who underwent emergent or non-emergent (planned) therapeutic PCI[2] for unprotected LMCA disease at our center from 2003 to 2007. Baseline values were compared with findings at 1, 6 and 12 months after the procedure.

Results: The study group comprised 71 consecutive patients with a mean age of 74 ± 12 years; 63% were men, and 31% had diabetes. Forty-three patients had a planned procedure and 28 an emergent procedure. Mean EuroScore was 7.3 ± 3.6 (range 5–12). Forty-nine percent of the procedures were performed with bare metal stents and 51% with drug-eluting stents. Procedural success was achieved in 100% of cases. The overall mortality rate was 11.3% at 1 month, 18.3% at 6 months and 19.7% at 12 months. Elective PCI was associated with significantly lower mortality (2.3% vs. 25% at 1 month, 4.6% vs. 39% at 6 months and 6.9% vs. 39% at 12 months), and the use of drug-eluting stents was associated with lower rates of target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac events than use of bare metal stents (2.8% vs. 14% at 1 month, 8.3% vs. 43% at 6 and 12 months). Variables that correlated with increased mortality or MACE[3] at 6 and 12 months were cardiogenic shock, emergent PCI, ejection fraction < 35%, renal failure, distal left main stenosis location, and reference diameter < 3 mm.

Conclusions: PCI is a feasible and relatively safe therapeutic option for unprotected LMCA. The less favorable outcome of emergent compared to planned PCI is probably attributable to the overwhelming acute myocardial ischemic injury in emergent cases. The use of drug-eluting stents may improve the intermediate-term restenosis rate.

[1] LMCA = left main coronary artery

[2] PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention

Background: Left main coronary artery disease is considered a surgical indication in most centers. However, in some cases prohibited from surgery or in patients with prior bypass grafting, there is a need for percutaneous coronary intervention in LMCA[1] disease scenarios.

Objectives: To assess the clinical outcomes among patients undergoing stent-based LMCA angioplasty.

Methods: We identified 34 consecutive patients who underwent PCI[2] in LMCA at our institution. Procedural data and clinical outcomes were obtained for all patients.

Results: The mean age was 71 ± 12 years. There were 27 elective and 7 emergent procedures performed on 23 “protected” LMCA and 11 “unprotected” LMCA. In emergent procedures, the prevalence of cardiogenic shock (29% vs. 0%, P = 0.04) in patients with prior coronary bypass (29% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.007) was significantly higher compared to elective cases. Procedural success in emergent procedures was significantly lower than in elective procedures (71 vs. 100%, P = 0.04). In emergent versus elective procedures, the in-hospital mortality rate was higher (43 vs. 0%, P = 0.006). The rate of cumulative major adverse cardiac events at 1 and 6 months was 43% and 71% in emergent cases versus 0% and 33% in elective cases (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). In patients with “unprotected” LMCA the overall major cardiac events at 1 month was higher compared to “protected” LMCA patients (27 vs. 0%, P = 0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed emergent procedure as an independent predictor for mortality and adverse cardiac events (odds ratio 6.7; 95% confidence interval 1.2–36; P = 0.02).

Conclusions: Percutaneous interventions in LMCA are feasible and relatively safe in carefully selected cases. Procedural outcomes and clinical prognosis is highly dependent on the nature of disease prior to angioplasty (e.g., elective vs. emergent procedure) as well as on protection of the LMCA by patent grafts.