BACKGROUND: Few data regarding the safety and effectiveness of self-apposing sirolimus-eluting Stentys stent are available.
METHODS: 278 patients (30% stable coronary artery disease, 70% acute coronary syndromes, and 54% on unprotected left main) treated with sirolimus eluting Stentys stent were retrospectively included in the self-aPposing, bAlloon-delivered, siRolimus-eluting stent for the Treatment of the coronary Artery disease multicenter registry. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis) were the primary end-point, single components of MACE were the secondary ones.
RESULTS: After 13 months (interquartile range 5-32), MACE was 14%. Stent thrombosis occurred in 3.9% of the patients (2.5% definite stent thrombosis and 1.4% probable stent thrombosis), 66% of them presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at admission. Cardiovascular death, target lesion revascularization and myocardial infarction was 4.7%, 8.3%, and 7.2%, respectively. At multivariate analysis, risk of MACE was increased by diabetes (hazard ratios 4.76; P = 0.002) but was not affected by the indication leading to sirolimus-eluting Stentys stent implantation (marked vessel tapering vs. coronary ecstasies, hazard ratios 0.74, P = 0.71).
CONCLUSION: Sirolimus-eluting Stentys stent may represent a potential solution for specific coronary anatomies such as bifurcation, ectasic, or tapered vessels. Risk of stent thrombosis appears related to clinical presentation with STEMI and to anatomic features, stressing the importance of the use of intracoronary imaging for self-expandable stents implantation.
BACKGROUND: SES may provide a valuable option to treat distal ULM, particularly when significant caliber gaps with side branches are observed.
METHODS: Patients from the multicenter SPARTA (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02784405) and FAILS2 registries were included. Propensity-score with matching was performed to account for the lack of randomization. Primary end-point was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization [TLR], unstable angina and definite stent thrombosis [ST]). Single components of MACE were the secondary end-points.
RESULTS: Overall, 151 patients treated with SES and 1270 with DES-II were included; no differences in MACE rate at 250 days were observed (9.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.54). After propensity score with matching, 129 patients treated with SES and 258 with DES-II, of which about a third of female gender, were compared. After a follow-up of 250 days, MACE rate did not differ between the two groups (9.9% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.66), as well as the rate of ULM TLR (1.6% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.36) and definite ST (0.8% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.78). These results were consistent also when controlling for the treatment with provisional vs. 2-stents strategies for the ULM bifurcation.
CONCLUSION: SES use for ULM treatment was associated with a similar MACE rate compared to DES-II at an intermediate-term follow-up. SES might represent a potential option in this setting.