Institute of Cardiology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Mar;4(3):327-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.12.005.
This study sought to compare the procedural performance and the acute angiographic result on side-branch ostium obtained using 2 different drug-eluting stents (DES) to treat patients with bifurcated coronary lesions.
Drug-eluting stents are routinely used in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) of bifurcated coronary lesions. Different DES types have major technical differences that may influence the procedural and clinical performance in bifurcation PCI.
Consecutive patients with bifurcated lesions undergoing DES implantation using a systematic provisional-stenting strategy were randomized to sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or everolimus-eluting stent (EES) before intervention. The procedural details for PCI were prospectively recorded to assess the occurrence of any trouble in the side-branch (SB) management (primary end point). Post-PCI angiographic result (primary end point: minimal lumen diameter at SB ostium) was evaluated offline by 3-dimensional reconstruction and quantitative coronary analysis. Clinical outcome was prospectively recorded up to 18 months to assess the occurrence of target bifurcation failure.
A total of 150 patients were enrolled in the study (29% diabetics, 17% unprotected left main). The stent was successfully implanted according to randomization in all cases. Procedural performance was not significantly different between the 2 kinds of DES. Three-dimensional reconstruction and quantitative coronary analysis showed similar post-PCI results in the main vessel and better results in the SB with EES than with SES (minimal lumen diameter at SB ostium: 1.94 ± 0.72 mm vs. 1.64 ± 0.62 mm; p = 0.013). At 18 months, target bifurcation failure occurred in 7 (9.0%) of SES-treated patients versus 8 (10.7%) of EES patients (p = 0.57).
In patients with bifurcated lesions treated by provisional stenting technique, EES compared with SES is associated with similar procedural performance and better 3-dimensional reconstruction and quantitative coronary analysis result in the SB. Both DES are associated with low rates of major adverse events and angiographic failure. (Sirolimus Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Randomized Assessment in Bifurcated Lesions and Clinical Significance of Residual Side-Branch Stenosis [SEA-SIDE]; NCT00697372).
本研究旨在比较使用 2 种不同的药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗分叉病变患者的边支开口的手术操作表现和急性血管造影结果。
DES 已常规用于分叉病变的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)。不同的 DES 类型存在主要的技术差异,可能会影响分叉 PCI 的手术操作和临床效果。
连续纳入采用系统的边支保护策略行 DES 植入术的分叉病变患者,在介入前随机分为西罗莫司洗脱支架(SES)组或依维莫司洗脱支架(EES)组。前瞻性记录 PCI 的手术操作细节以评估边支(SB)处理中任何麻烦的发生情况(主要终点)。术后血管造影结果(主要终点:SB 开口处最小管腔直径)通过三维重建和定量冠状动脉分析进行离线评估。前瞻性记录 18 个月的临床结果,以评估靶分叉失败的发生情况。
共纳入 150 例患者(29%为糖尿病患者,17%为无保护左主干)。所有患者均根据随机分组成功植入支架。2 种 DES 的手术操作表现无显著差异。三维重建和定量冠状动脉分析显示,主血管的术后结果相似,EES 组的 SB 结果优于 SES 组(SB 开口处最小管腔直径:1.94 ± 0.72mm 比 1.64 ± 0.62mm;p = 0.013)。18 个月时,SES 组有 7 例(9.0%)患者和 EES 组有 8 例(10.7%)患者发生靶分叉失败(p = 0.57)。
在采用边支保护技术治疗的分叉病变患者中,EES 与 SES 相比,SB 的手术操作表现相似,且三维重建和定量冠状动脉分析结果更好。两种 DES 的主要不良事件和血管造影失败发生率均较低。(西罗莫司与依维莫司洗脱支架在分叉病变中的随机评估及边支残余狭窄的临床意义研究[SEA-SIDE];NCT00697372)