RESUMEN
In this study, we compare the outcomes of the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) versus the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) treated patients at a tertiary medical center and up to 2 years follow-up. Unselected consecutive patients were retrospectively recruited following stenting with PES (159 patients) or EES (189 patients). The primary endpoint of the study was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the combined endpoint of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints included target vessel revascularization (TVR), TLR, target vessel failure (TVF), acute stent thrombosis (ST), total death, cardiac death, and nonfatal MI. Patients treated with the PES stent had less congestive heart failure and restenotic lesions, but a higher prevalence of longer lesions, nonleft main bifurcations, required more stents per patient (4.3 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.1). TLF occurred in 32.3% PES versus 21.5% EES (p = 0.027). The secondary unadjusted endpoints for PES versus EES, respectively, were TVF 38.6 versus 30.7% (p = 0.140), TVR 35.7 versus 26.5% (p = 0.079), definite and probable ST 1.2 versus 0.0%, nonfatal MI 4.5 versus 4.2%, and mortality 9.6 versus 4.0%. Logistic regression analysis showed that the numbers of stents per patient (p = 0.001), age (p = 0.01), and renal failure (p = 0.045) were independent predictors of TLF. Using univariate analysis, EES had lower TLF than PES in a cohort of unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at 2 years follow-up. Multivariate analysis showed that the numbers of stents per patient, age, and renal failure, but not stent type, were predictors of TLF.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Distal embolization (DE) commonly occurs during peripheral percutaneous interventions (PPI) of the lower-extremity arterial vessels. In this study we evaluate the predictors of DE in a large cohort of patients undergoing PPI at our center. METHODS: Patients who experienced clinically significant DE (requiring further mechanical or pharmacologic therapy as per operator judgment) were extracted from a peripheral vascular registry that prospectively tracks demographics, clinical, procedural and outcome variables on patients undergoing PPI at our medical center and compared these to patients in the same registry who did not experience DE. Univariate analysis was utilized to compare patients with and without DE. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the independent predictors of DE. RESULTS: Of 577 patients, 14 (2.4%) experienced clinically significant DE. By univariate analysis, patients who experienced DE had longer lesion length (130.0 +/- 123.35 mm vs. 90.05 +/- 104.94 mm; p = 0.049), more severe angiographic pretreatment lesion stenosis (91.71% +/- 14.76% vs. 85.65% +/- 14.26%; p = 0.027), reduced pretreatment TIMI flow (1.21 +/- 1.34 vs. 2.15 +/- 1.1; p = 0.001), a higher rate of prior amputations (21.4% vs. 5.9%; p = 0.052), a higher prevalence of TASC-D lesions (59.3% vs. 29.6%; p = 0.002), more angiographic thrombus (35.7% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.001), and less frequency of chronic onset of symptoms on presentation (64.3% vs. 90.6%; p = 0.009). Logistic regression analysis showed that a prior history of amputation (odds ratio [OR] 3.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-14.47; p = 0.08), presence of thrombus (OR 5.02, 95% CI 1.53-16.42; p = 0.008) and TASC-D lesions (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.24- 15.03; p = 0.022) were independent predictors of DE. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant DE requiring further mechanical or pharmacologic therapy occurs in approximately 2.4% of patients undergoing PPI. Patients with TASC-D lesions, angiographic thrombus and prior history of amputation are at high risk of DE.