Comparison of 5-year outcomes in patients with and without unprotected left main coronary artery disease after treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents: insights from the j-Cypher registry.

This study assessed 5-year outcomes after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease in comparison with that for non-left main disease. More information on long-term outcomes after ULMCA stenting is needed. The j-Cypher is a multicenter prospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing SES implantation in Japan. Among 12,812 patients enrolled in the j-Cypher registry, the unadjusted mortality rate at 5 years was significantly higher in patients with ULMCA stenting than in patients without ULMCA stenting (22.8% vs. 14.1%; p < 0.0001); however, the risk for death with ULMCA stenting was no longer significant after adjusting for confounders (hazard ratio: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.95 to 1.46; p = 0.14). In the lesion-level comparison, the nonbifurcation ULMCA lesions treated exclusively with SES had a significantly lower rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) than those in non-ULMCA nonbifurcation lesions (2.4% vs. 12.7%; p = 0.04). Among bifurcation lesions, those treated with a provisional 2-stent approach had similar rates of TLR (12.1% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.79) between the ULMCA and non-ULMCA groups. Lesions treated with an elective 2-stent approach had higher TLR rates in the ULMCA group as compared with the non-ULMCA group (33.5% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.002). The safety of ULMCA stenting relative to non-LMCA stenting was maintained through 5 years follow-up. In terms of efficacy, SES implantation in nonbifurcation ULMCA lesions was associated with an extremely low cumulative incidence of TLR, whereas the elective 2-stent approach for ULMCA bifurcation lesions was associated with a markedly higher cumulative incidence of TLR as compared with that for non-ULMCA bifurcation lesions.

Toyofuku M ，Kimura T ，Morimoto T ，Hayashi Y ，Shiode N ，Nishikawa H ，Nakao K ，Shirota K ，Kawai K ，Hiasa Y ，Kadota K ，Nozaki Y ，Isshiki T ，Sone T ，Mitsudo K ，j-Cypher Registry Investigators ... -  《-》

Impact of coronary anatomy and stenting technique on long-term outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

This study sought to evaluate the impact of anatomic and procedural variables on the outcome of the unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) itself after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. There is a controversial debate regarding when and how to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an uLMCA stenosis. This analysis is based on a randomized study of 607 patients undergoing PCI for uLMCA, randomized 1:1 to receive paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents. We evaluated the impact of the SYNTAX score, uLMCA anatomy, and stenting technique on in-stent restenosis (ISR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and the 3-year outcomes. The 3-year cardiac mortality rate was 5.8%; 235 (39%) patients had a true bifurcation lesion (TBL), and the median SYNTAX score was 27. TBL was associated with a higher need for multiple stents (72% vs. 37%, p < 0.001). TBL was a significant predictor of ISR (23% vs. 14%, p = 0.008) and for TLR (18% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). The need for multiple stents was a predictor of ISR (22% vs. 13%, p = 0.005) and for TLR (16% vs. 9%, p = 0.005). Culotte stenting showed better results compared with T-stenting for ISR (21% vs. 56%, p = 0.02) and for TLR (15% vs. 56%, p < 0.001). We observed a significant association between uLMCA-TLR and SYNTAX scores (9.2% for scores ≤ 22, 14.9% for scores 23 to 32, and 13.0% for scores ≥ 33, p = 0.008). PCI of uLMCA lesions with DES is safe and effective out to 3 years. TBL and multiple stents were independent predictors for ISR. In the multivariate analysis, independent predictors for TLR were TBL, age, and EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation). (Drug-Eluting-Stents for Unprotected Left Main Stem Disease [ISAR-LEFT-MAIN]; NCT00133237).

Tiroch K ，Mehilli J ，Byrne RA ，Schulz S ，Massberg S ，Laugwitz KL ，Vorpahl M ，Seyfarth M ，Kastrati A ，ISAR-LEFT MAIN Study Investigators ... -  《-》

Long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for ostial/mid-shaft lesions versus distal bifurcation lesions in unprotected left main coronary artery: the DELTA Registry (drug-eluting stent for left main coronary artery disease): a

The aim of this study was to compare, in a large all-comer registry, the long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) for ostial/mid-shaft lesions versus distal bifurcation lesions in unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. Limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes following DES implantation at the different ULMCA sites. Patients with ULMCA stenosis treated by PCI with DES were analyzed in this multinational registry. A total of 1,612 patients were included: 482 were treated for ostial/mid-shaft lesions versus 1,130 for distal bifurcation lesions. At a median follow-up period of 1,250 (interquartile range: 987 to 1,564) days, PCI for distal bifurcation lesions was associated with a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events (propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 1.89; p = 0.001), largely because of the higher target vessel revascularization rate observed in this group as compared to the ostial/mid-shaft lesions group (propensity-score adjusted HR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.19 to 2.38; p = 0.003). These results were sustained following propensity-score matched analysis. With regard to all-cause death and the composite endpoint of all-cause death and myocardial infarction, propensity-score adjusted analysis suggested a trend toward higher rates of these in the distal ULMCA PCI group, although this was not observed in the propensity-score matched analysis. This study demonstrates that PCI for ostial/mid-shaft lesions is associated with better clinical outcomes than are distal bifurcation lesions in ULMCA, largely because there is a lower need for repeat revascularization in ostial/mid-shaft lesions.

Naganuma T ，Chieffo A ，Meliga E ，Capodanno D ，Park SJ ，Onuma Y ，Valgimigli M ，Jegere S ，Makkar RR ，Palacios IF ，Costopoulos C ，Kim YH ，Buszman PP ，Chakravarty T ，Sheiban I ，Mehran R ，Naber C ，Margey R ，Agnihotri A ，Marra S ，Capranzano P ，Leon MB ，Moses JW ，Fajadet J ，Lefevre T ，Morice MC ，Erglis A ，Tamburino C ，Alfieri O ，Serruys PW ，Colombo A ... -  《-》

Three-year outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: insights from the j-Cypher registry.

Toyofuku M ，Kimura T ，Morimoto T ，Hayashi Y ，Ueda H ，Kawai K ，Nozaki Y ，Hiramatsu S ，Miura A ，Yokoi Y ，Toyoshima S ，Nakashima H ，Haze K ，Tanaka M ，Take S ，Saito S ，Isshiki T ，Mitsudo K ，j-Cypher Registry Investigators ... -  《-》

Meta-analysis of everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: final 3-year results of the SPIRIT clinical trials program (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of P

This study sought to investigate whether the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) is superior to the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) with respect to long-term individual clinical outcomes. Individual studies have indicated a clinical advantage of coronary EES compared with PES with respect to restenosis and the composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in low-frequency event rates and have reported limited data beyond 1-year follow-up. We conducted a meta-analysis of the final 3-year results from the international SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) II, III, and IV clinical trials. Individual patient data from 4,989 patients who were prospectively randomized to treatment with EES (n = 3,350) or PES (n = 1,639) were pooled for analysis. At 3-year follow-up, EES was superior to PES in reducing the following event rates: target lesion failure (8.9% vs. 12.5%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.85; p = 0.0002), all-cause mortality (3.2% vs 5.1%, HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.86; p = 0.003), myocardial infarction (3.2% vs. 5.1%, HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.85; p = 0.002), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (4.4% vs. 6.3%, HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.90; p = 0.005), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.0% vs. 8.2%, HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.90; p = 0.004), stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 1.7%, HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.78; p = 0.003), and major adverse cardiac events (9.4% vs. 13.0%, HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.85; p = 0.0002). No interaction was present between stent type and the 3-year relative rates of target lesion failure across a broad range of subgroups, with the exception of diabetes and vessel (left anterior descending vs. other). In this large dataset with 3-year follow-up, coronary implantation of EES compared with PES resulted in reduced rates of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, and target lesion failure. Further research is warranted to characterize possible interactions between stent type, diabetes, and vessel.

Dangas GD ，Serruys PW ，Kereiakes DJ ，Hermiller J ，Rizvi A ，Newman W ，Sudhir K ，Smith RS Jr ，Cao S ，Theodoropoulos K ，Cutlip DE ，Lansky AJ ，Stone GW ... -  《-》