http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/15609/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/13703/ 2005-03-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND: The use of sirolimus-eluting coronary stents has been associated with a nearly complete elimination of restenosis at 6 months and with a very low 1-year incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). This analysis examined whether these beneficial effects persist over the longer term. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter trial randomly assigned 238 patients to revascularization of single, de novo, native coronary artery lesions with sirolimus-eluting versus conventional bare-metal stents. Survival free from target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel failure (TVF), and MACE up to 3 years of follow-up was compared between the 2 treatment groups. Complete data sets were available in 94.2% of patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents and in 94.1% of patients randomized to the control group. The cumulative 1-, 2-, and 3-year event-free survival rates were 99.2%, 96.5%, and 93.7% for TLR and 95.8%, 92.3%, and 87.9% for TVF, respectively, in the sirolimus-eluting stent group, versus 75.9%, 75.9%, and 75.0% for TLR and 71.2%, 69.4%, and 67.3% for TVF in the control group (P<0.001 for both comparisons at 3 years). Rates of MACE at 3 years were 15.8% in patients randomly assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents versus 33.1% in patients assigned to bare-metal stents (P=0.002). One patient treated with a sirolimus-eluting stent died of a cardiac cause between 12 and 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of de novo coronary stenosis with sirolimus-eluting stents was associated with a sustained clinical benefit and very low rates of TLR and of other MACE up to 3 years after device implantation. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/10276/ 2004-01-01T00:00:00Z AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) on neointimal growth and vessel remodelling for in-stent restenosis versus de novo coronary artery lesions using serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 86 patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) (n=41) or de novo lesions (n=45) treated with SES and evaluated by IVUS post-procedure and at follow-up. One 18-mm SES was used for de novo lesions while 16 patients with ISR received >1SES (total stented length 17.9 mm vs 22.0 mm respectively; P=0.004). At follow-up, no differences were observed between the ISR and de novo groups with respect to changes in the mean external elastic membrane (1.7% vs 1.3%; P=0.53), plaque behind the stent (1.2% vs 3.4%; P=0.49), and lumen areas (0.7% vs 1.9%; P=0.58). No positive remodelling or edge effect was observed. A gap between stents was observed in two patients with ISR, where more prominent, though non-obstructive, neointimal proliferation was noted. CONCLUSION: Sirolimus-eluting stenting is equally effective at inhibiting neointimal proliferation in de novo and ISR lesions without inducing edge restenosis or positive vascular remodelling. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/10290/ 2004-01-01T00:00:00Z Patients with diabetes mellitus have less favourable outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than non-diabetics. We performed a subgroup analysis of the multicentre RAVEL trial to examine the impact of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) on outcomes in diabetic patients. The RAVEL study randomized 238 patients to treatment with either sirolimus-eluting or bare metal stents. Forty-four patients were diabetic; 19 received sirolimus-eluting stents and 25 were treated with bare metal stents. The differences in outcomes between diabetic and non-diabetic patients treated with SES (n=101) were also assessed. Follow-up angiography was performed at 6 months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) were analysed at 12-month follow-up. Six-month in-stent late lumen loss was significantly lower for the diabetic SES than the bare stent group (0.07+/-0.2 vs 0.82+/-0.5mm; P<0.001) and similar to that in non-diabetics treated with SES (-0.03+/-0.27mm). There was zero restenosis in the SES groups (diabetic and non-diabetic) compared to a 42% rate in the diabetic population assigned to bare metal stents (P=0.001). After 12 months, there was one non-Q-wave MI and one non-cardiac death in the diabetic SES group, while 12 patients in the bare metal stent group had MACE (one death, two MI, nine TLR) (P=0.01)-an event-free survival rate of 90% vs 52%, respectively (P<0.01). There were no TLRs in both SES groups compared to 36% rate in the diabetic bare metal stent group (P=0.007).Conclusion Diabetics treated with SES were associated with a virtual abolition of neointimal proliferation and low event rates at long-term follow-up. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/9995/ 2002-10-08T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND: Restenosis remains the major limitation of coronary catheter-based intervention. In small vessels, the amount of neointimal tissue is disproportionately greater than the vessel caliber, resulting in higher restenosis rates. In the Randomized Study With the Sirolimus-Eluting Bx Velocity Balloon-Expandable Stent (RAVEL) trial, approximately 40% of the vessels were small (<2.5 mm). The present study evaluates the relationship between angiographic outcome and vessel diameter for sirolimus-eluting stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized to receive either an 18-mm bare metal Bx VELOCITY (BS group, n=118), or a sirolimus-eluting Bx VELOCITY stent (SES group, n=120). Subgroups were stratified into tertiles according to their reference diameter (RD; stratum I, RD <2.36 mm; stratum II, RD 2.36 mm to 2.84 mm; stratum III, RD >2.84 mm). At 6-month follow-up, the restenosis rate in the SES group was 0% in all strata (versus 35%, 26%, and 20%, respectively, in the BS group). In-stent late loss was 0.01+/-0.25 versus 0.80+/-0.43 mm in stratum I, 0.01+/-0.38 versus 0.88+/-0.57 mm in stratum II, and -0.06+/-0.35 versus 0.74+/-0.57 mm in stratum III (SES versus BS). In SES, the minimal lumen diameter (MLD) remained unchanged (Delta -0.72 to 0.72 mm) in 97% of the lesions and increased (=late gain, DeltaMLD <-0.72 mm) in 3% of the lesions. Multivariate predictors for late loss were treatment allocation (P<0.001) and postprocedural MLD (P= 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stents prevent neointimal proliferation and late lumen loss irrespective of the vessel diameter. The classic inverse relationship between vessel diameter and restenosis rate was seen in the bare stent group but not in the sirolimus-eluting stent group.