Restenosis following thin‐strut bare‐metal stents versus thick‐strut drug‐eluting stents

D. Moliterno
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21057
IF: 2.3
2007-05-01
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Abstract:The exercise of estimating the risk of restenosis associated with percutaneous coronary interventions has been relegated to the interesting-but-not-so-relevant category by many interventionalists since drug-eluting stents (DES) have subdued most prior independent predictors of restenosis. Among the stent-related variables reported to affect restenosis in the bare-metal-stent (BMS) era have been the composition, covering, and thickness of the devices’ struts [1–4]. The first prospective, randomized study assessing the importance of stent strut thickness was ISAR-STEREO (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results-Strut Thickness Effect on Restenosis Outcome), which included 651 patients receiving either a thin-strut (50 lm) or thickstrut (140 lm) stent. Angiographic restenosis at 6month follow-up was observed in 15.0 versus 25.8% (P 1⁄4 0.003) of patients in the thinversus thick-strut groups, respectively, and the corresponding rate of ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year was 8.6 and 13.8% (P 1⁄4 0.03). This 42% relative risk reduction in angiographic restenosis and 38% reduction in TVR with thin-strut stents outshined the procedure-related advantages of thick-strut stents (greater radiovisibility and radial strength). Reference vessel diameter in the ISAR-STEREO study was to be >2.8 mm, and a subsequent thin-versus-thick BMS study [5] confirmed the relatively lower restenosis rates with thin-strut stents for vessels in the 2.8–3.0 mm range but not vessels of smaller diameter. In that report, Briguori et al. [5] from Italy reviewed their database and reported on 821 consecutively treated patients who had angiographic follow-up. Among vessels with a reference vessel diameter between 2.8 and 3.0 mm, angiographic restenosis occurred in 23.5% receiving thin-strut stents versus 37.0% for thick-strut stents (P 1⁄4 0.006). For vessels 2.75 mm in diameter, the respective restenosis rates (31.9 and 36.4%) were not significantly different according to strut thickness. A multivariate analysis of the ISAR-STEREO data later showed lesion complexity to be an independent predictor of restenosis, such that the reduction in restenosis with thin-strut stents was only evident in more complex (ACC/AHA class B2 and C) lesions [6]. Lastly, the ISAR-STEREO investigators performed a second thin-versus-thick BMS study [7], this time using stents with different geometric design. In the ISAR-STEREO-2 trial [7], 611 patients were randomized to a thin-strut, interconnected-ring design stent (ACSMultilink) or to a thick-strut, closedcell design stent (BX Velcocity). Six-month angiographic restenosis remained lower with thin struts (17.9 versus 31.4%, P < 0.001) as did 1-year TVR (12.3 versus 21.9%, P1⁄4 0.002). Soon after the ISAR-STEREO studies were published, sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents became available, and these DES markedly reduce restenosis and TVR as compared with BMS [8]. For several reasons, the paper by Ortolani et al. [9] in this issue of CCI is particularly interesting and timely as they compared DES with a newer thin-strut BMS. The BMS used by Ortolani et al. was a third-generation cobalt– chromium stent (CCS). This alloy helps overcome some of the visibility and strength limitations of prior thinstrut stents. Another interesting point, albeit speculative, is that since previous studies assessing the extent of restenosis reduction from DES used a thick-strut BMS as the comporator, the superiority of DES over BMS may be lessened if the comparison group received a thinstrut CCS. In addition, the recurring concerns of an increased risk of DES-associated late stent thrombosis may give thin-strut BMS a renewed attractiveness. Ortolani and colleagues randomized 104 patients to a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES, Cypher) or a CCS (Vision, 80 lm struts) in a single-center, singleblind study. Angiographic follow-up at 9 months showed lower late loss (0.18 versus 0.58 mm, P <
What problem does this paper attempt to address?