Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the additional value of the Global Risk—a combination of the SYNTAX Score (SXscore) and additive EuroSCORE—in the identification of a low-risk population, who could safely and efficaciously be treated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background PCI is increasingly acceptable in appropriately selected patients with left main stem or 3-vessel coronary artery disease. Methods Within the SYNTAX Trial (Synergy between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery Trial), all-cause death and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were analyzed at 36 months in low (GRCLOW) to high Global Risk groups, with Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, and Cox regression analyses. Results Within the randomized left main stem population (n = 701), comparisons between GRCLOW groups demonstrated a significantly lower mortality with PCI compared with CABG (CABG: 7.5%, PCI: 1.2%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03 to 0.70, p = 0.0054) and a trend toward reduced MACCE (CABG: 23.1%, PCI: 15.8%, HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.07, p = 0.088). Similar analyses within the randomized 3-vessel disease population (n = 1,088) demonstrated no statistically significant differences in mortality (CABG: 5.2%, PCI: 5.8%, HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.57 to 2.30, p = 0.71) or MACCE (CABG: 19.0%, PCI: 24.7%, HR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.92, p = 0.10). Risk-model performance and reclassification analyses demonstrated that the EuroSCORE—with the added incremental benefit of the SXscore to form the Global Risk—enhanced the risk stratification of all PCI patients. Conclusions In comparison with the SXscore, the Global Risk, with a simple treatment algorithm, substantially enhances the identification of low-risk patients who could safely and efficaciously be treated with CABG or PCI.
Despite all the benefits of drug-eluting stents (DES), concerns have been raised over their long-term safety, with particular reference to stent thrombosis. In an effort to address these concerns, newer stents have been developed that include: DES with biodegradable polymers, DES that are polymer free, stents with novel coatings, and completely biodegradable stents. Many of these stents are currently undergoing pre-clinical and clinical trials; however, early results seem promising. This paper reviews the current status of this new technology, together with other new coronary devices such as bifurcation stents and drug-eluting balloons, as efforts continue to design the ideal coronary stent.
No abstract is provided for this article.
The effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in unselected patients treated in the daily practice is currently unknown.Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation has been used as the default strategy for all percutaneous procedures in our hospital as part of the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry. Consecutive patients with de novo lesions (n=508) treated exclusively with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES group) were compared with 450 patients who received bare stents in the period just before (pre-SES group). Patients in the SES group more frequently had multivessel disease, more type C lesions, received more stents, and had more bifurcation stenting. At 1 year, the cumulative rate of major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) was 9.7% in the SES group and 14.8% in the pre-SES group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.89]; P=0.008). The 1-year risk of clinically driven target vessel revascularization in the SES group and in the pre-SES group was 3.7% versus 10.9%, respectively (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.57]; P<0.001).Unrestricted utilization of sirolimus-eluting stents in the "real world" is safe and effective in reducing both repeat revascularization and major adverse cardiac events at 1 year compared with bare stent implantation.
The primary results of Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study reported a greater need for repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting (PCI). However, PCI was less expensive than coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and offered the same degree of protection against death, stroke, and myocardial infarction.Patients with multivessel disease (n=1205) were randomly assigned to either CABG or PCI and followed up for up to 3 years. Survival rates without stroke or myocardial infarction were similar in each group at 1 year and 3 years (90.5% versus 91.4% for PCI versus CABG at 1 year and 87.2% versus 88.4% for PCI versus CABG at 3 years). However, the respective repeat revascularization rates were 21.2% and 26.7% at 1 and 3 years in patients allocated to PCI, compared with 3.8% and 6.6% in patients allocated to CABG (P<0.0001). Diabetes (P<0.0009) and maximal pressure for stent deployment (P<0.002) are the strongest independent predictors of events at 3 years after PCI, whereas left anterior descending coronary artery grafting (P<0.006) is the best predictor of event-free survival at 3 years after CABG. The incremental cost of surgery compared with PCI for an event-free patient was 19 257 at 1 year but decreased to 10 492 at 3 years. It remained at 142 391 at 3 years when revascularization procedures were excluded in the efficacy end point, however.Three-year survival rates without stroke and myocardial infarction are identical in both groups, and the cost/benefit ratio of stenting is determined primarily by the increasing need for revascularization in the PCI group.
