6,963 publications from this institution
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
The aim of this article is to review the current status of optimal revascularization strategies in patients presenting with multivessel coronary artery disease.Coronary artery bypass surgery is the gold standard for patients with multivessel disease. Recent developments in the interventional field, like drug-eluting stents, which significantly reduced restenosis and the need for repeat revascularizations, have cut back one of the largest limitations of percutaneous coronary intervention.There is currently little evidence to believe that in a general population, opting for either coronary artery bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention would imply a better long-term survival. Coronary artery bypass surgery is still associated with higher rates of complete revascularization and a higher durability than percutaneous coronary intervention, resulting in lower rates of repeat revascularization. The current evidence, however, is based on sub-optimal inconclusive data from single center or multicenter registries. Until the results of several dedicated ongoing randomized trials are presented, the choice for a revascularization strategy should be made not only on the basis of feasibility but also by taking into account each patient's co-morbidities and risk factors. Careful monitoring of glycemic control and lipid concentrations and an optimal pharmacological treatment are at least as important in achieving an optimal outcome.
Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of patient and lesion complexity on outcomes with newer-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES). Background Clinical and angiographic outcomes of newer-generation stents have not been described among complex patients. Methods Patients enrolled in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) were stratified into “complex” and “simple.” Results Of 2,292 patients, 1,520 (66.3%) were complex and treated with ZES (n = 764) or EES (n = 756). Event rates were higher among complex patients, and results did not differ between ZES and EES, regardless of complexity. At 1 year, target lesion failure was 8.9% in ZES- and 9.7% in EES-treated complex patients (p = 0.66) and 6.8% in ZES- and 5.7% in EES-treated simple patients (p = 0.55). Rates of cardiac death (1.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.24), target-vessel myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.90), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (4.4% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.80) were similar for both stent types among complex patients. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 20 (1.3%) complex patients with no difference between ZES (1.7%) and EES (0.9%, p = 0.26). Angiographic follow-up showed similar results for ZES and EES in terms of in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (22.2 ± 15.4% vs. 21.4 ± 15.8%, p = 0.67) and in-segment binary restenosis (6.6% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.82) in the complex group. Conclusions In this all-comers randomized trial, major adverse cardiovascular events were more frequent among complex than simple patients. The newer-generation ZES and EES proved to be safe and effective, regardless of complexity, with similar clinical and angiographic outcomes for both stent types through 1 year. (RESOLUTE-III All Comers Trial: A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00617084)
Coronary hemodynamics and vasodilatory effects on major epicardial arteries were investigated after a single dose of nicorandil in 22 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization for suspected coronary artery disease. Nicorandil, 20 mg, was administered sublingually to 11 consecutive patients and 40 mg to 11 others. Systemic blood pressure decreased significantly without affecting the heart rate. Coronary sinus blood flow did not change significantly. As the mean aortic pressure decreased significantly by 13% after 20 mg and 21% after 40 mg of nicorandil, the calculated coronary vascular resistance decreased but did not reach statistical significance. There was a decrease in myocardial oxygen consumption (−14% and −22%, respectively), and this was consistent with a significant decrease in the calculated pressure-rate product of 19% and 24%, respectively. A total of 103 selected coronary segments, including 17 stenotic segments, were analyzed quantitatively using a computer-assisted coronary angiography analysis system. After 20 or 40 mg of nicorandil, a significant increase of the mean diameter was observed in the proximal (+9% and +7%), midportion (+10% and +11%) and distal (+15% and +13%) parts of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Corresponding values for the proximal (+13% and +10%) and distal (+10% and +15%) segments of the circumflex artery were observed. An increase in the obstruction diameter was also observed in all but 3 of the analyzed stenotic segments. The results demonstrate that nicorandil, in the route and doses used, causes a significant vasodilatation in the major epicardial coronary segments, including most stenotic segments, and decreases the myocardial oxygen demand with little effect on the resistance vessels.