Skip to main content
Clinical Cardiology logoLink to Clinical Cardiology
. 2009 Nov 24;32(11):633–638. doi: 10.1002/clc.20591

Comparison of Long‐term Outcomes Following Sirolimus‐eluting Stent vs Paclitaxel‐eluting Stent Implantation in Patients with Long Calcified Coronary Lesions

Seung‐Ho Hur 1,, Yun‐Kyeong Cho 1, Chang‐Wook Nam 1, Hyungseop Kim 1, Seong‐Wook Han 1, Yoon‐Nyun Kim 1, Hee‐Joon Park 2, Jong‐Seon Park 3, Dong‐Gu Shin 3, Young‐Jo Kim 3, Bong‐Sup Shim 3, Tae‐Hyun Yang 4, Dae‐Kyeong Kim 4, Doo‐Il Kim 4, Dong‐Soo Kim 4, Kwon‐Bae Kim 1
PMCID: PMC6653650  PMID: 19938048

Abstract

Background

Although previously reported studies on coronary calcification mainly focused on its presence or absence in discrete focal target lesions, calcified coronary lesions (CCL) angiographically present as diffuse long lesions in some patients. The aim of our study was to evaluate the long‐term efficacy of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) on long CCL.

Methods

A total of 122 patients with 134 lesions (77 patients with 88 lesions for SES and 45 patients with 46 lesions for PES) were enrolled from 3 centers. Long CCL was defined visually as a culprit lesion with type B or C that was mainly due to coronary calcification with > 20 mm in total length by coronary angiography. Clinical follow‐up was performed at 1 year and angiographic follow‐up at 6 to 9 months after procedure. Major adverse coronary events (MACE) were defined as all‐cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat target‐lesion revascularization (TLR).

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in baseline, procedural, or angiographic characteristics and in 1‐year rates of all‐cause death, MI, and TLR between the 2 groups (all P = NS [not significant]). Likewise, the cumulative incidence of MACE at 1 year was similar between the 2 groups (7.8% of patients in the SES group vs 4.4% of patients in the PES group, respectively, P = NS). In patients who underwent follow‐up angiography, the angiographic binary restenosis rate was 6.2% in the SES group vs 12.1% in the PES group, respectively (P = NS).

Conclusion

In patients with long CCL, both SES and PES were comparably effective in either angiographic or clinical long‐term outcomes. Copyright © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (140.8 KB).

References

  • 1. Fitzgerald PJ, Ports TA, Yock PG. Contribution of localized calcium deposits to dissection after angioplasty. An observational study using intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 1992; 86: 64–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Mehran R, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors of angiographic restenosis in lesions treated with Palmaz‐Schatz stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 43–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus‐eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1315–1323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. A polymer‐based, paclitaxel‐eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 221–231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Seung KB, Park DW, Kim YH, et al. Stents versus coronary‐artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1781–1792. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cannon L, et al. Comparison of a polymer‐based paclitaxel‐eluting stent with a bare metal stent in patients with complex coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005; 294: 1215–1223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, et al. Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease. Implications for patient selection. Multivessel Angioplasty Prognosis Study Group. Circulation 1990; 82: 1193–1202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Popma JJ, et al. Treatment of calcified coronary lesions with Palmaz‐Schatz stents. An intravascular ultrasound study. Eur Heart J 1998; 19: 1224–1231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Kent KM, et al. Comparative early and nine‐month results of rotational atherectomy, stents, and the combination of both for calcified lesions in large coronary arteries. Am J Cardiol 1998; 81: 552–557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Moussa I, Di Mario C, Moses J, et al. Coronary stenting after rotational atherectomy in calcified and complex lesions. Angiographic and clinical follow‐up results. Circulation 1997; 96: 128–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Kelbaek H, Klovgaard L, Helqvist S, et al. Long‐term outcome in patients treated with sirolimus‐eluting stents in complex coronary artery lesions: 3‐year results of the SCANDSTENT (Stenting Coronary Arteries in Non‐Stress/Benestent Disease) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51: 2011–2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Yanagi D, Shirai K, Takamiya Y, et al. Results of provisional stenting with a sirolimus‐eluting stent for bifurcation lesion: multicenter study in Japan. J Cardiol 2008; 51: 89–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, von Beckerath N, et al. Sirolimus‐eluting stent or paclitaxel‐eluting stent vs balloon angioplasty for prevention of recurrences in patients with coronary in‐stent restenosis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005; 293: 165–171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Li JJ, Xu B, Yang YJ, et al. Effects of sirolimus‐eluting stent on calcified coronary lesions. Chin Med J(Engl) 2008; 121: 6–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Clavijo LC, Steinberg DH, Torguson R, et al. Sirolimus‐eluting stents and calcified coronary lesions: clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without rotational atherectomy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006; 68: 873–878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Seo A, Fujii T, Inoue T, et al. Initial and long‐term outcomes of sirolimus‐eluting stents for calcified lesions compared with bare‐metal stents. Int Heart J 2007; 48: 137–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Kawaguchi R, Tsurugaya H, Hoshizaki H, Toyama T, Oshima S, Taniguchi K. Impact of lesion calcification on clinical and angiographic outcome after sirolimus‐eluting stent implantation in real‐world patients. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2008; 9: 2–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Moussa I, Ellis SG, Jones M, et al. Impact of coronary culprit lesion calcium in patients undergoing paclitaxel‐eluting stent implantation (a TAXUS‐IV sub study). Am J Cardiol 2005; 96: 1242–1247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Shimada Y, Kataoka T, Courtney BK, et al. Influence of plaque calcium on neointimal hyperplasia following bare metal and drug‐eluting stent implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006; 67: 866–869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Virmani R, Farb A, Burke AP. Coronary angioplasty from the perspective of atherosclerotic plaque: morphologic predictors of immediate success and restenosis. Am Heart J 1994; 127: 163–179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Budoff MJ, Yu D, Nasir K, et al. Diabetes and progression of coronary calcium under the influence of statin therapy. Am Heart J 2005; 149: 695–700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Hata N, Kunimi T, Kishida H, Miyagawa H, Ikema Y, Hayakawa H. Clinical significance of coronary artery calcification. Int Angiol 1994; 13: 281–285. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical Cardiology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES