CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY

Coronary Artery Stents Jassim Al Suwaidi, MB, ChB Peter B. Berger, MD David R. Holmes, Jr, MD

T

HE INTRODUCTION AND WIDE-

spread use of coronary stents have been the most important advancement in the percutaneous treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) since the initial introduction of balloon angioplasty. There have been several phases in the evolution of stent practice, some of which occurred simultaneously: (1) initial use limited by the need for multiple medications to prevent subacute thrombosis; (2) recognition that these antithrombotic regimens prolonged hospitalization, increased bleeding complications, and failed to prevent acute or subacute artery closure; (3) recognition of the importance of stent implantation for treatment of acute or threatened artery closure after balloon angioplasty; (4) documentation of decreased restenosis in narrowly defined populations; (5) a shift from anticoagulant to antiplatelet therapies; and (6) widespread use of stents for many clinical presentations and lesion types. Throughout these phases, stent technology has improved with more flexible and deliverable stents, allowing an increasing number of angiographic lesion subsets to be treated. Scientific knowledge about stents has expanded rapidly. In 1996, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) published an evidence-based expert consensus document1 that included the initial 2 randomized trials using the proSee also pp 1799 and 1839.

Context Intracoronary stents are now used for the majority of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization, and the body of scientific knowledge about stents has expanded rapidly in the last several years. Objective To review the evidence supporting the widespread use of intracoronary stents. Data Sources The MEDLINE database was searched for articles from 1990 through January 2000 using the indexing terms stents, coronary artery disease, and angioplasty. Additional data sources included bibliographies of articles identified on MEDLINE, bibliographies in textbooks on percutaneous coronary interventions, and preliminary data presented at recent national and international cardiology conferences. Study Selection We selected for review studies that assessed the effects of stenting on the immediate and long-term outcome of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization. If data from randomized controlled trials were not available for specific patient subsets or lesion characteristics, observational studies were included. Data Extraction The methodologic characteristics of studies in coronary stenting were extracted and summarized according to key components of research design, including lesion type, location, and adjunctive therapy used. Studies were classified according to the strength of the available data into proven and unproven indications for stent use. Data Synthesis Coronary artery stents increase the safety of interventional procedures, increase procedure success rates, and decrease the need for emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Conclusions Intracoronary stents have become an essential component of the catheterbased treatment of coronary artery disease. The evidence indicates that elective stenting, rather than provisional stenting or balloon angioplasty alone, improves clinical outcomes in the months following percutaneous coronary revascularization in a wide variety of clinical settings and lesion types. www.jama.com

JAMA. 2000;284:1828-1836

totype Palmaz-Schatz stent2,3 and registry experiences that led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of the first 2 stents for the treatment of discrete, de novo lesions to prevent restenosis and for treatment of acute or impending artery closure with angioplasty. By the time the ACC document was published, stents were being used in more than 50% of all percutaneous coronary artery procedures.4 Subsequently, stent technology and research continued to advance and by the time the second ACC consensus document was published just 2 years later,5 neither of the 2 stents on which the first document was based were

1828 JAMA, October 11, 2000—Vol 284, No. 14 (Reprinted)

used, having been replaced by improved stents. Since 1996, the number of randomized clinical trials and other studies evaluating stents has increased rapidly, and stents are now used in the Author Affiliations: Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minn. Corresponding Author and Reprints: David R. Holmes, Jr, MD, Cardiovascular Diseases and Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, SMH MB 4-523, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: [email protected]). Clinical Cardiology Section Editors: Bruce Brundage, MD, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine; Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Executive Deputy Editor, JAMA. This article is one of a series published in conjunction with the American Heart Association.

©2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/4755/ on 01/20/2017

CORONARY ARTERY STENTS

overwhelming majority of percutaneous coronary revascularization procedures. Herein we review all the studies relevant to this practice pattern. METHODS The MEDLINE database was searched for articles from 1990 through January 2000 for randomized clinical trials and observational studies for the treatment of CAD using the index terms stents, coronary artery disease, and angioplasty. Recently completed but not yet published clinical trials also were included after review by all 3 authors. Multicenter randomized trials were given more weight in recommendations than single-center observational studies. Studies were classified according to the strength of the available data into proven and unproven indications for stent use and whether presented at recent national and international cardiology conferences. STENT DESIGNS AND INDICATIONS Balloon-expandable stents are the most commonly used, although a small number of self-expanding stents are available. Stents range from 8 to 38 mm in length and from 2.5 to 4.0 mm in diameter. Stents differ in interunit connections, flexibility, radiopacity, surface area coverage, metal content, and metal composition (although the overwhelming majority are 316L stainless steel) (FIGURE ). Selection of a specific stent for a specific application is rarely based on the results of any specific randomized clinical trial. Different stents have been compared with one another in 8 randomized trials using an equivalence design, and in most of these studies, stent performance has been found equivalent.6-9 Therefore, selection of a specific stent for a patient is generally made based on the operator’s experience with that stent, and lesion characteristics for which it is being used (such as ease of stent deliverability, need for side-branch access, size of the target vessel, lesion length) and the stent delivery system (eg, monorail or over-the-wire). There are 2 broad

Figure. Various Stent Designs A

B

A, Medtronic S670 and B, Boston Scientific Nir Gold Royal. Stents range in size from 8 to 38 mm in length and from 2.5 to 4.0 mm in diameter.

groups of indications for stent implantation. The first is treatment of acute or threatened artery closure following balloon angioplasty. Stent placement in this setting has been documented to result in decreased need for emergency surgery in multiple observational studies. The second, more common indication is elective stent implantation for optimizing the initial and longer-term revascularization result. LESIONS AND SITUATIONS FOR WHICH STENTING IS BENEFICIAL Native Coronary Artery Lesions in Vessels $3 mm in Diameter

There have been 122,3,10-21 randomized trials comparing stents with balloon angioplasty in more than 6300 patients (TABLE 1). Although the adjunctive therapy administered with both stents and angioplasty has changed over time, the results of these trials have been consistent: adverse cardiac events were reduced with use of stents by about 30% in the 6 months following the procedure. This reduction was mainly due to a decreased need for repeat revascularization, with a risk reduction of approximately 50%, a benefit that persists over time. These results are not necessarily applicable to all patient and angiographic subsets. Among patients with more complex lesion morphology, restenosis rates after stent placement are increased, 2 2 but appear to be increased even more if angioplasty alone is used. Several important lessons have

©2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

been learned: (1) Stents decrease restenosis by providing the largest initial angiographic gain and by preventing early recoil and late negative remodeling (constriction) of the treated vessel.23,24 However, neointimal hyperplasia is increased with stent use compared with angioplasty alone.25-28 (2) Even when an initial optimal angiographic result is obtained with angioplasty alone, placement of a stent in coronary arteries 3 mm or greater in diameter improves clinical outcome and reduces restenosis.29 (3) There is a distinct difference between angiographic and clinical restenosis, both of which are reduced by stent placement. The performance of subsequent revascularization is influenced by routine follow-up angiography. In the Benestent II study, patients were randomized to undergo either angioplasty or stenting and also randomized to undergo either clinical follow-up or clinical and angiographic follow-up. In the patients without protocol angiographic follow-up, repeat revascularization was substantially less frequent (6.0%) compared with patients with protocol angiographic follow-up (12.3%, P=.02).30 Chronic Total Occlusions

Success rates for treatment of chronic total coronary artery occlusions are lower than for nonoccluded arteries. Even when an occlusion is crossed and dilated successfully, restenosis and reocclusion are more frequent than in nonoccluded arteries.31-33 Nine randomized trials have compared angioplasty alone

(Reprinted) JAMA, October 11, 2000—Vol 284, No. 14

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/4755/ on 01/20/2017

1829

CORONARY ARTERY STENTS

with stent placement in coronary artery occlusions in more than 1000 patients (TABLE 2).34-42 These studies revealed a reduction in angiographic and clinical restenosis and reocclusion in stented patients. Accordingly, current evidence suggests that patients with chronic total artery occlusions should have a stent placed if the runoff vascular bed is of sufficient size ($2.5 mm). Stenotic Vein Grafts

Treatment of stenotic vein grafts accounts for up to 10% of percutaneous interventional procedures.43 Major prob-

ment along with warfarin plus aspirin and 110 to receive balloon angioplasty. Stent placement resulted in higher procedural success (92% vs 68%, P,.001) and lower rates of angiographic restenosis (37% vs 46%), target vessel revascularization (17% vs 26%), and the combined end point of death, MI, or target vessel revascularization (26% vs 39%) at 6 months. Preliminary data from the Venestent trial51 showed comparable success between the 2 groups in an intention-to-treat analysis, although crossover to stents was required in 24% of the balloon angioplasty group. At 6 months,

lems associated with balloon dilatation in vein grafts include increased acute complications such as distal embolization and “no reflow” (which can cause myocardial infarction [MI]) and also high restenosis rates.44-46 Observational studies have revealed a higher procedural success rate with stenting compared with that of angioplasty alone, higher long-term patency, and improved in-hospital clinical outcome.47-49 Two randomized trials evaluated the role of stent placement in vein grafts. In the SAVED trial,50 110 patients were randomly assigned to receive stent place-

Table 1. Studies Comparing Balloon Angioplasty With Stents for Native Coronary Artery Lesions* Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR), %

Angiographic Restenosis, % Study, y STRESS,2 1994 Benestent,3,14 1994 TASC I,10 1995§ Versaci et al,15 1997 STRESS II,12 1998 Benestent II,13 1998 OCBAS,16 1998 WIN,17 1998§ BOSS,18 1998§ EPISTENT,19,20 1998¶ START,11 1999 OPUS,21 1999§

Follow-up, mo

No., Stent/ Angioplasty

Stent Angioplasty

6 7/60† 6 12 12 6 7 6 8 6 6/48# 6

205/202 259/257 270 (Overall)\ 60/60 100/89 413/410 57/59 299/287\ 40/40 1603/796 229/223 480 (Overall)

31.6 22 31 19 ... 16 18.8 38 ... ... 22 ...

42.1 32 46 40 ... 31 16.6 37 ... ... 37 ...

P Value

Stent

Angioplasty

.046 .02 .01 .02 ... ,.001 ... ... ... ... ,.002 ...

10.2 13.5/17.3‡ ... 6.6 10 8‡ 17.5 39 21.4 8.7 12 4.0

15.4 23.3/27.6 ... 22 20 13.7 9.2 39 23.5 15.4 24.6 10.7

Death, MI, or TVR, %

P Value

Stent

.06 19.5 ,.05/.006 20.1/65.5 ... ... ... ... ... 17 .02 12.8 ... 19.2 ... 28.1 ... ... ,.001 13 ,.002 16.9 #.05 6.1

Angioplasty 23.8 29.6/59.8 ... ... 34 19.3 16.9 26.8 ... 20.5 29.9 14.9

*MI indicates myocardial infarction. Ellipses indicate data not reported for that category. For expansions of study names, see the corresponding reference. Data are for lesions in coronary arteries with vessel diameter $3.0 mm. †Later follow-up at 60 months. ‡Any repeat procedure. §Only preliminary data are available. \One hundred twenty-two patients in the TASC I trial and 43 in the WIN trial had restenotic lesions treated. ¶Stent plus abciximab vs percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty plus abciximab. #Six months angiographic follow-up and 48 months clinical follow-up.

Table 2. Studies Comparing Balloon Angioplasty With Stents for Occluded Coronary Arteries* Angiographic Restenosis, % Study, y SICCO,34 1996† Thomas et al,40 1996§ GISSOC,36 1998 CORSICA, 37 1998§ SPACTO,35 1999 STOP,38 1999§ TOSCA,39 1999 SARECCO,41 1999 MAJIC,42 1999§

Reocclusion, %

Target Vessel Revascularization, %

Adverse Cardiac Events, %

Follow-up, No. of P P P mo Patients Stent Angioplasty Value Stent Angioplasty Value Stent Angioplasty Value Stent Angioplasty 6 6 9 6 6 6 6 24 6

119 60 110 142 85 96 410 110 221

32 37.5 32 ... 32.4 ... 55 26 57

74 60 68 ... 63.6 ... 70 62 56

,.001 12 ... ... ,.001 8 ... ... .01 2.9 ... ... ,.01 10.9 ,.05 2 .90 1.2

26 ... 34 ... 24.4 ... 19.5 14 9.3

.06 ... .003 ... ,.01 ... .02 ,.05 .02

22 ... 5.3 22.2 25 38.7 8.4 52 25

53‡ ... 22 34.3 40 18.9 15.4 26 48.9

.002 ... .04 .10 ,.02 ... .10 ,.05 ,.001

24.1 ... ... 22.2 30 22.2 23.3 48 ...

59.3‡ ... ... 27.1 65 35.7 23.6 74 ...

*Ellipses indicate data were not gathered for that category. For expansions of study names, see the corresponding reference. †Warfarin and aspirin given to stent patients. ‡Late clinical follow-up (33 months). §Only preliminary data are available.

1830 JAMA, October 11, 2000—Vol 284, No. 14 (Reprinted)

©2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/4755/ on 01/20/2017

CORONARY ARTERY STENTS

adverse cardiac events had occurred less frequently in the stent group (n=78) than in the angioplasty group (n=72), primarily due to less frequent target lesion revascularization (17% vs 26%), and a lower rate of the composite end point of death, MI, or target vessel revascularization (26% vs 39%). Multiple patterns of vein graft disease, including ostial lesions, discrete and diffuse body lesions, and distal anastomotic lesions, may not benefit equally from stent implantation. In general, however, stent implantation improves initial success rates and reduces the need for target vessel revascularization in vein grafts compared with angioplasty alone. Restenotic Lesions

Following balloon angioplasty of restenotic lesions, the recurrent restenosis rate is 30% to 50%; treatment with other devices is no more successful at reducing recurrent restenosis. In the REST trial,52 383 patients with restenosis following balloon angioplasty were randomized to receive either stenting or balloon angioplasty alone. There was a

significant decrease in angiographic restenosis (18% vs 32%, P=.03) and the need for target lesion revascularization (10% vs 27%, P=.001) with stent use.

in the months after treatment. In the Stent-PAMI trial,61 stents were associated with a significant reduction in the combined end point at 6 months of death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, or target vessel revascularization from 20.1% in the angioplasty group to 12.6% in the stent group (P,.01). The difference was due entirely to the different rates of target vessel revascularization (17.0% vs 7.7%, P,.001). Subsequently, preliminary data from the CADILLAC trial (Greg Stone, MD, oral presentation at the American College of Cardiology, March 2000) confirmed a lower in-hospital target vessel revascularization rate with stents, and a similar high rate of TIMI grade 3 flow when Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors were administered prior to stenting.

Acute MI

Nine randomized trials compared stenting with balloon angioplasty in acute MI 5 3 - 6 1 (T ABLE 3). Using an intention-to-treat analysis, stent placement was associated with a similar rate of angiographic success as angioplasty alone, although approximately 20% of patients randomized to receive angioplasty required crossover to stent placement to achieve angiographic success. However, these trials indicate that stent use led to a slightly lower rate of achieving Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow, probably due to distal embolization of platelet-rich debris. The administration of an intravenous platelet glycoprotein (Gp) IIb/IIIa inhibitor prior to stent placement improved the frequency with which TIMI grade 3 flow was achieved. Stenting also resulted in a decreased need for target lesion revascularization

Treatment of Acute or Threatened Artery Closure

To date, there are no published randomized trials on the role of stenting for the treatment of acute artery closure. However, registry studies suggest that intracoronary stenting is the most effective treatment of acute or impending clo-

Table 3. Studies Comparing Balloon Angioplasty With Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction*

Study, y GRAMI,54 1998 FRESCO,55 1998 STENTIM 2,57 1998§ Suryapranata et al,60 1998 PASTA,53 1999 PRIASM,56 1999 PSAAMI,58,59 1999§ Stent-PAMI,61 1999 CADILLAC, 1999§\

Late Events (Cumulative), % Early Events (0-30 Days), % No., Follow-up, Any Stent/ Success, Crossover, mo Death Reinfarction TVR Event Restenosis Death Reinfarction TVR Angioplasty % % 12 52/52 98/94.2 25† 3.8/7.6 0/7.6 0/5.7 3.8/19.2 ... ... ... 14/21 6

75/75

99‡

...

0/0

1.3/2.6

1.3/12

1

211

97/97

35.5†

1/0

4/3.6

5/5.4

6

112/115

98/96

2/13

2/3

1/4

12

67/69

99/97

1/10

3/7

6

222

...

...

1

44/44

...

6

452/448

...

Any Event 17/35

3/15

17/43

1/0

1/3

7/25

13/32

6/6

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

2/3

1/7

4/17

5/20

3/4

6/13

6/19

5/9

...

...

22/49

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

21.3/34.7

...

...

7/9

2/5

14/36 21/57

...

...

...

...

...

89.4/92.7

1.5/15

3.5/1.8

0.4/1.1

1.8/3.8 4.6/5.8

2.4/2.2

7.7/17

12.6/20.1

1036/1045 92.1/94.8

15-20†

1.4

0.4

...

...

...

0.9

...

17/37.5

20.3/33.5 4.2/2.7 ...

...

*Ellipses indicate data not gathered for that category; TVR, target vessel revascularization. All data are presented as values for stent/angioplasty groups. For expansions of study names, see the corresponding reference. †Values for crossovers from angioplasty to stent treatment. ‡Success rate of 99% before randomization. §Only preliminary data are available. \Greg Stone, MD, oral presentation at the American College of Cardiology, March 2000.

©2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

(Reprinted) JAMA, October 11, 2000—Vol 284, No. 14

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/4755/ on 01/20/2017

1831

CORONARY ARTERY STENTS

sure, and that stenting reduces the need for emergency coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.62,63 It would no longer be considered ethical to randomize patients with severe persistent coronary artery dissections or refractory acute closure to any treatment other than stent placement.

from observational studies.82-84 Lesion length, stent length, and placement of multiple stents are all independent predictors of restenosis. Whether the high restenosis rates associated with stent treatment of long lesions are lower than with angioplasty alone is unknown.

LESIONS AND SETTINGS FOR WHICH STENTING IS OF UNPROVEN BENEFIT

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Small Vessels (,3 mm)

Although there is increasing information on the clinical outcome following stenting for small vessels (diameter ,3 mm), the role of stenting is unclear.64-78 Early observational data suggested an increased risk of stent thrombosis,62,63 with rates of up to 7%; however, more recent, larger series have revealed a lower incidence of stent thrombosis (,2.5%).67,68 Restenosis rates after stent placement in small vessels are higher than rates for stent implantation in larger vessels (range, 30%-66%, with target vessel revascularization rates from 13%-35%).64-78 Preliminary results from 3 randomized trials (ISAR-SMART, SISA, and BESMART) revealed conflicting results.79,80 In ISAR-SMART, there were no significant differences between the stent group and the angioplasty group in the frequency of angiographic restenosis (35% vs 37%) or target vessel revascularization (20.1% vs 16.5%). However, in BESMART, angiographic restenosis (22.7% vs 48.5%, P,.001) and target vessel revascularization (13% vs 25%, P=.02) were significantly lower in the stent group. In SISA, repeat revascularization was lower in the stent group (16.6% vs 25.5%). Firm conclusions about the use of stents in small vessels cannot be made until more clinical trial data become available. Long Lesions

Treatment of long lesions ($20 mm) is associated with an increase of restenosis after both angioplasty and stent placement.81 There are no randomized trials comparing stents with balloon angioplasty in patients with long lesions; the only available data are

Patients with disease of the left main coronary artery (LMCA) can be divided into 2 groups: those with a “protected” LMCA (patients with a patent graft to the left circumflex or left anterior descending coronary artery), and those with an “unprotected” LMCA (patients with no patent grafts to the left coronary system). Studies of angioplasty of patients with LMCA stenoses reported varying degrees of procedural success but poor long-term results.85-87 Stenting of the LMCA is primarily performed in patients with a protected LMCA.88 However, stenting is also performed with increasing frequency in patients with an unprotected LMCA, and the results are improved compared with previous studies of balloon angioplasty alone.89-91 Existing data suggest that the outcome of stent placement in discrete lesions in the middle of the LMCA, remote from the distal bifurcation and not involving the ostium, are associated with the best results. However, the potentially fatal complication of LMCA restenosis requires that patients who undergo LMCA stenting require careful follow-up, usually with repeat angiography and serial noninvasive testing. The outcome in these patients also depends on left ventricular function. In patients who undergo stent placement in the LMCA and have normal left ventricular function (ie, those who would have been excellent surgical candidates), the results of stenting are superior to results in those who undergo stenting but are poor surgical candidates or have inoperable lesions.89 Current evidence suggests that CABG surgery remains the treatment of choice for patients with significant LMCA disease who are surgical candidates.

1832 JAMA, October 11, 2000—Vol 284, No. 14 (Reprinted)

Bifurcation Lesions

Treatment of bifurcation lesions is associated with both an increase in both early complications (particularly compromise of the main or branch vessel) and an increase in restenosis, regardless of which device approach is used. A number of stent techniques have been used to treat bifurcation lesions including “T-stenting,” “reverse y-stenting,” “trouser-leg stenting,” and stent implantation of the major branch with angioplasty or atherectomy (or both) of the side branch.92,93 Observational studies suggest no advantage in stenting both branches of the bifurcation lesion compared with stenting 1 branch and performing angioplasty of the other branch94-96; in fact, the outcome appears to be worse when stents are placed in both branches.96 Provisional Stenting

In the early and mid-1990s the need for stent use in certain lesion types was shown to reduce the need for target lesion revascularization. However, there was concern that routine stent use without first trying to obtain “satisfactory” results with balloon angioplasty alone would increase cost as well as the frequency of in-stent restenosis, a more difficult problem to treat than restenosis after balloon angioplasty alone. Accordingly, 5 clinical trials were performed to compare routine vs a provisional use of stents (OCBAS,16 OPUS-1,21 DEBATE II,97 DESTINI,98 and FROST99). These trials included a variety of patient and lesion subsets; equally important, they used somewhat different criteria for a “satisfactory” balloon angioplasty result. OPUS-1 used visual assessment of the angiographic result, whereas DEBATE II and DESTINI used angiographic stenosis and physiologic assessment of the result using Doppler flow reserve. The different trials identified some common findings, including that a satisfactory or optimal result is often not achieved with angioplasty alone, so stent implantation is common and the frequency of achieving an optimal angioplasty result varies depending on the definition used. Using angiographic cri-

©2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/4755/ on 01/20/2017

CORONARY ARTERY STENTS

teria alone (OCBAS), 13.5% of the angioplasty group crossed over to stent implantation. Using angiography and physiologic criteria for an optimal result, up to 50% of patients failed to achieve an optimal result. The clinical outcome with a strategy of routine stenting is as good or better than that achieved with a strategy of provisional stenting. The results of these randomized trials, also supported by the EPISTENT trial,24 support the current practice of elective routine stenting for most lesions. ADJUNCTIVE THERAPY Antiplatelet Therapy

Five trials (ISAR, STARS, MATTIS, FANTASTIC and Hall et al)100-105 evaluated the role of aspirin, ticlopidine, and warfarin in patients with a variety of lesion types and different clinical settings. In these studies, the combination of aspirin and ticlopidine resulted in a lower rate of stent thrombosis and major adverse events, as well as fewer vascular and bleeding complications, than aspirin and warfarin or aspirin alone. Ticlopidine has been largely replaced by clopidogrel, a thienopyridine closely related to ticlopidine in chemical structure and function, because ticlopidine caused occasionally life-threatening neutropenia in more than 1% of patients. Ticlopidine also causes thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) in approximately 0.3% of patients, which is fatal in 25% to 50% of cases.106 Clopidogrel does not appear to cause neutropenia and only rarely causes TTP.107,108 Another benefit of clopidogrel is that large loading doses are well tolerated, shortening the onset of action. The combination of clopidogrel and aspirin following stent placement has been studied in 3 randomized trials109-111 and in 7 registries112-118; findings suggest that the frequency of stent thrombosis with clopidogrel is low and equivalent to ticlopidine but with fewer adverse effects. Gp IIb/IIIa Inhibitors

Another important adjunctive therapy used during stent placement is intravenous platelet Gp IIb/IIIa receptor block-

ers.119-121 Recent trials suggest synergy when Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors are used during stent placement. In the EPISTENT trial,19,20 in which 2399 patients were assigned to either stent placement plus placebo (n=809), stent placement plus abciximab (n=794), or angioplasty plus abciximab (n=796), a significant reduction in cardiac events occurred in the stent and abciximab group at 6 months (5.6%) vs the angioplasty and abciximab group (7.8%) and stent with placebo group (11.4%), and the benefit persisted for at least 1 year. EPISTENT19 confirmed that even during elective percutaneous coronary revascularization, stent implantation increases the frequency of procedural myocardial enzyme elevation by 40% to 50%. In the ESPRIT trial, 2064 patients undergoing elective percutaneous revascularization with stents were randomized to receive eptifibatide or placebo. The trial was terminated early when the results of the first 1758 patients demonstrated a 43% reduction in death or MI at 48 hours with eptifibatide.79 Taken together, these data demonstrate that stents increase the frequency of procedural enzyme elevation compared with angioplasty, but the concomitant treatment with Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors reduces the frequency of procedural enzyme elevation and other complications by 40% to 50%. Intravascular Ultrasound

The role of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during stent placement is controversial. Information obtained by IVUS complements that obtained with angiography. In addition to aiding in selection of stent size, length, and postdilation balloon diameter, IVUS can be used to ensure complete apposition and adequate stent expansion. Using IVUS after stent implantation, Colombo et al122 demonstrated that the majority of stents (70%) were not fully expanded despite acceptable angiographic results; hence, stent thrombosis often may be due to underexpansion or incomplete opposition of the stent to the vessel wall. Colombo et al then demonstrated that high deployment pressures with IVUS guidance and dual antiplatelet therapy

©2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

were associated with a stent thrombosis rate of 0.3%. However, a large French registry study123 subsequently demonstrated a low stent thrombosis rate when high deployment pressures were used and dual antiplatelet therapy was administered even without IVUS guidance, results that have since been duplicated. It is clear that IVUS is not routinely required to achieve low rates of stent thrombosis. Nonetheless, it has been suggested that IVUS-guided stent implantation may improve long-term outcome. An inverse relationship between minimal stent area determined by IVUS and the subsequent development of restenosis has been reported in a number of studies.124-126 In these studies, however, the magnitude of restenosis reduction with IVUS guidance is variable. In summary, IVUS has advanced the understanding of important issues surrounding stent placement and provides valuable additional information to guide stent placement over angiography alone, although it is unclear whether IVUS needs to be routinely performed. IN-STENT RESTENOSIS Although stents reduce the rate of coronary artery restenosis, in-stent restenosis (ISR) is a significant clinical problem. 127 In-stent restenosis may be classified angiographically into 4 patterns according to the distribution of intimal hyperplasia in reference to the implanted stent. Pattern I includes focal (#10 mm in length) lesions, pattern II is greater than 10 mm within the stent, pattern III is greater than 10 mm extending outside the stent, and pattern IV is totally occlusive ISR. This classification has been found to be prognostically significant. After treatment of these different patterns of ISR, repeat target lesion revascularization ranges from 19% in pattern I to 83% in pattern IV.128 Focal restenosis typically responds well to balloon angioplasty.129 However, for diffuse ISR, multiple modalities have been studied,130,131 including excimer laser, 132,133 rotational atherectomy,129,133,134 and directional atherectomy.133 None have been

(Reprinted) JAMA, October 11, 2000—Vol 284, No. 14

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/4755/ on 01/20/2017

1833

CORONARY ARTERY STENTS

shown to reduce repeat restenosis more effectively than balloon angioplasty alone. Observational studies have shown that stenting for ISR is associated with a high procedural success rate and a low complication rate, although the long-term benefit of this strategy remains unproven.135-138 The only treatment modality to provide a significant reduction in restenosis after any intervention is intracoronary brachytherapy.139,140 Randomized trials have documented reduced recurrent restenosis rates vs angioplasty alone. The benefits of brachytherapy appear to be particularly beneficial for diabetic patients, in whom dramatic reductions in angiographic restenosis (13.8% vs 63.1% with placebo) and target vessel revascularization (26.2% vs 67.7% with placebo) were seen, and for patients with long lesions.141 However, late stent thrombosis resulting in acute MI has been observed as late as 9 months following revascularization, suggesting the need for long-term thienopyridine therapy in this population.142 In addition, the importance of avoiding new stent placement at the time of brachytherapy has been emphasized. Similar benefits were seen with beta-radiation: the START trial demonstrated a 42% reduction in target lesion revascularization when compared with placebo (13% vs 22%, P=.008).79 Although radioactive stents have been developed and tested, the immediate and longer-term results appear less successful.142-148 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS Economic analysis of stent implantation is complex. The cost of each stent at approximately $1500 and the cost of adjunctive antiplatelet agents (eg, clopidogrel) must be balanced by the cost savings from the decreased need for repeat procedures. As new technologies further reduce stenosis and the need for repeat procedures, it is likely that stent implantation will become increasingly cost-effective.149-151 FUTURE STENT APPLICATIONS Much interest has focused on loading a drug onto a stent to limit early throm-

bogenicity and late neointima formation. Local stent-based drug delivery has the potential to maximize drug levels at the target site but minimize systemic effects. Many drugs have been evaluated, some of which are being tested clinically, including paclitaxel and rapamycin. The long-term role of this approach remains promising.152-154 The use of stents as drug delivery platforms remains promising, but unproven. CONCLUSION Coronary artery stents are essential in every modern interventional catheterization laboratory. Intracoronary stents have increased the safety of interventional procedures and have increased revascularization procedure success rates, decreasing the need for emergency CABG surgery. Data from randomized trials indicate that elective stenting of discrete lesions, de novo lesions, restenotic lesions, lesions in saphenous venous grafts, chronic totally occluded arteries, and infarct-related arteries improves clinical outcome. REFERENCES 1. Pepine CJ, Holmes DR Jr. American College of Cardiology Expert Consensus documents: coronary artery stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:782-794. 2. Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al. A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:496-501. 3. Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, et al, for the Benestent Study Group. A comparison of balloonexpandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:489-495. 4. Holmes DR Jr, Bell MR, Holmes DR 3rd, et al. Interventional cardiology and intracoronary stents—a changing practice. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997; 40:133-138. 5. Holmes DR Jr, Hirshfeld J Jr, Faxon D, et al. ACC Expert Consensus document on coronary artery stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1471-1482. 6. Ellis SG, Holmes DR Jr, eds. Strategic Approaches in Coronary Intervention. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999. 7. Holmes DR, Kuntz R, Popma J, et al. Randomized trial of PARAGON stent versus JJIS stent [abstract]. Circulation. 1998;98:I-660. 8. Safian RD, Kaplan B, Schreiber T, et al, for the WINS Investigators. Final results of the randomized Wallstent endoprosthesis in saphenous vein graft trial [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:37A. 9. Caputo RP, Giambartolomei A, Simaons A, et al. Small vessel stenting: six month results from the EXTRA Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:56A. 10. Penn IM, Ricci DR, Almond DG, et al. Coronary artery stenting reduces restenosis: final results from the Trial of Angioplasty and Stents in Canada (TASC) I [abstract]. Circulation. 1995;92(suppl I):I-279. 11. Betriu A, Masotti M, Serra A, et al. Randomized

1834 JAMA, October 11, 2000—Vol 284, No. 14 (Reprinted)

comparison of coronary stent implantation and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions (START). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 34:1498-1506. 12. George CJ, Baim DS, Brinker JA, et al. One-year follow-up of the Stent Restenosis (STRESS I) Study. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81:860-865. 13. Serruys PW, van Hout B, Bonnier H, et al. Randomised comparison of implantation of heparincoated stents with balloon angioplasty in selected patients with coronary artery disease. Lancet. 1998;352: 673-681. 14. The Benestent 1 Study group. Continued benefit of coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty [abstract]. Circulation. 1999;100:I-233. 15. Versaci F, Gaspardone A, Tomai F, et al. A comparison of coronary-artery stenting with angioplasty for isolated stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 1997;336: 817-822. 16. Rodriguez A, Ayala F, Bernardi V, et al. Optimal coronary balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting versus primary stent (OCBAS). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1351-1357. 17. Bilodeau L, Schreiber T, Hilaton DJ, et al. The Wallstent In Native coronary arteries (WIN) multicenter randomized trial [abstract]. Eur Heart J. 1998; 19(suppl):48. 18. Ambrose JA, Sharma SK, Marmur JD, et al. Balloon angioplasty vs Stent Study (BOSS) [abstract]. Circulation. 1997;96(suppl I):I-592. 19. The EPISTENT Investigators. Randomised placebocontrolled and balloon-angioplasty-controlled trial to assess safety of coronary stenting with use of platelet glycoprotein-IIb/IIIa blockade. Lancet. 1998;352:87-92. 20. Lincoff AM, Califf RM, Moliterno DJ, et al. Complementary clinical benefits of coronary-artery stenting and blockade of platelet glycoprotein IIb/ IIIa receptors. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:319-327. 21. Ferguson JJ. Highlights of the 48th scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. Circulation. 1999;100:570-575. 22. Kastrati A, Schomig A, Elezi S, et al. Prognostic value of the modified American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association stenosis morphology classification for long-term angiographic and clinical outcome after coronary stent placement. Circulation. 1999;100:1285-1290. 23. Kuntz RE, Safian RD, Carrozza JP, et al. The importance of acute luminal diameter in determining restenosis after coronary atherectomy or stenting. Circulation. 1992;86:1827-1835. 24. Kuntz RE, Gibson CM, Nobuyoshi M, Baim DS. Generalized model of restenosis after conventional balloon angioplasty, stenting and directional atherectomy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;21:15-25. 25. Hanke H, Hassenstein S, Ulmer A, et al. Accumulation of macrophages in the arterial vessel wall following experimental balloon angioplasty. Eur Heart J. 1994;15:691-698. 26. Rogers C, Karnovsky MJ, Edelman ER. Inhibition of experimental neointimal hyperplasia and thrombosis depends on the type of vascular injury and the site of drug administration. Circulation. 1993;88:1215-1221. 27. Gordon PC, Gibson CM, Cohen DJ, et al. Mechanisms of restenosis and redilation within coronary stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;21:1166-1174. 28. Schwartz RS. Characteristics of an ideal stent based upon restenosis pathology. J Invasive Cardiol. 1996; 8:386-387. 29. Holmes DR Jr, Kip KE, Yeh W, et al. Long-term analysis of conventional coronary balloon angioplasty and an initial “stent-like” result. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:590-595. 30. Ruygrok PN, Melkert R, Morel MM, et al, for the Benestent II Investigators. Does angiography six months after coronary intervention influence management and outcome? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:1507-1511.

©2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/4755/ on 01/20/2017

CORONARY ARTERY STENTS 31. Ishizaka N, Issiki T, Saeki F, et al. Angiographic follow-up after successful percutaneous coronary angioplasty for chronic total coronary occlusion. Am Heart J. 1994;127:8-12. 32. Ivanhoe RJ, Weintraub WS, Douglas JS Jr, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty of chronic total occlusions. Circulation. 1992;85: 106-115. 33. Violaris AG, Melkert R, Serruys PW. Long-term luminal renarrowing after successful elective coronary angioplasty of total occlusions. Circulation. 1995; 91:2140-2150. 34. Sirnes PA, Golf S, Myreng Y, et al. Stenting in Chronic Coronary Occlusion (SICCO). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:1444-1451. 35. Hoher M, Wohrle J, Grebe OC, et al. A randomized trial of elective stenting after balloon recanalization of chronic total occlusions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:722-729. 36. Rubartelli P, Niccoli L, Verna E, et al, for the Gruppo Italiano di Studio Sullo Stent Nelle Occlusioni Coronariche (GISSOC). Stent implantation versus balloon angioplasty in chronic coronary occlusions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:90-96. 37. Ray SG, Penn IM, Ricci DR et al. The CORSICA trial: short and mid-term outcome [abstract]. Eur Heart J. 1998;19(suppl):471. 38. Lotan C, Krakover R, Turgeman Y, et al. The STOP study: a randomized multicenter Israeli study for stents in total occlusion and restenosis prevention [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:28A. 39. Buller CE, Dzavik V, Carere RG, et al. Primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in occluded coronary arteries: the Total Occlusion Study of Canada (TOSCA). Circulation. 1999;100:236-242. 40. Thomas M, Hancock J, Wainwright R, Jewitt D. Coronary stenting following successful angioplasty for total occlusions [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:153A. 41. Sievert H, Rohde S, Utech A, et al. Stent or angioplasty after recanalization of chronic coronary occlusions? Am J Cardiol. 1999;84:386-390. 42. Tamai H, Tsuchikane E, Suzuki T, et al, for the MAJIC Investigators. Mayo-Japan Investigation for Chronic total occlusions (MAJIC) [abstract]. Circulation. 1999;100:I-436. 43. Barsness GW, Buller C, Ohman EM, et al. Reduced thrombus burden with abciximab delivered locally before percutaneous intervention in saphenous vein grafts. Am Heart J. 2000;139:824-829. 44. Piana RN, Paik GY, Moscucci M, et al. Incidence and treatment of “no-reflow” after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 1994;89:2514-2518. 45. de Feyter PJ, van Suylen RJ, de Jaegere PP, et al. Balloon angioplasty for the treatment of lesions in saphenous vein bypass grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993; 21:1539-1549. 46. Dorros G, Johnson WD, Tector AJ, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1984;87:17-26. 47. Brener SJ, Ellis SG, Apperson-Hansen C, et al. Comparison of stenting and balloon angioplasty for narrowings in aortocoronary saphenous vein conduits in place for more than five years. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:13-18. 48. Bhargava B, Kornowski R, Mehran R, et al. Procedural results and intermediate clinical outcomes after multiple saphenous vein graft stenting J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:389-397. 49. Piana RN, Moscucci M, Cohen DJ, et al. PalmazSchatz stenting for treatment of focal vein graft stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23:1296-1304. 50. Savage MP, Douglas JS Jr, Fischman DL, et al. Stent placement compared with balloon angioplasty for obstructed coronary bypass grafts. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337:740-747. 51. Hanekamp CEE, Koolen JJ, Heyer PD, et al. The Venestent Study Group [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:9A.

52. Erbel R, Haude M, Hopp HW, et al. Coronaryartery stenting compared with balloon angioplasty for restenosis after initial balloon angioplasty. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1672-1678. 53. Saito S, Hosokawa G, Tanaka S, Nakamura S, for the PASTA Trial Investigators. Primary stent implantation is superior to balloon angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999; 48:262-268. 54. Rodriguez A, Bernardi V, Fernandez M, et al. Inhospital and late results of coronary stents versus conventional balloon angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction (GRAMI trial). Am J Cardiol. 1998;81:12861291. 55. Antoniucci D, Santoro GM, Bolognese L, et al. A clinical trial comparing primary stenting of the infarctrelated artery with optimal primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 31:1234-1239. 56. Kawashima A, Ueda K, Nishida Y, et al. Quantitative angiographic analysis of restenosis of primary stenting using Wiktor stent for acute myocardial infarction [abstract]. Circulation. 1999;100(suppl I): I-856. 57. Maillard L, Hamon M, Monassier JP, et al, Stentim 2 Investigators. STENTIM 2: elective Wiktor stent implantation in acute myocardial infarction compared with balloon angioplasty [abstract]. Circulation. 1998;98(suppl I):I-21. 58. Scheller B, Hennen B, Severin O, et al. Follow-up of the PSAAMI study population (Primary Stenting versus Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction) [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(suppl):29A. 59. Horskotte D, Piper C, Andersen D, et al. Stent implantation for acute myocardial infarction [abstract]. Eur Heart J. 1996;17(suppl):297. 60. Suryapranata H, van’t Hof AW, Hoorntje JC, et al. Randomized comparison of coronary stenting with balloon angioplasty in selected patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1998;97:25022505. 61. Grines CL, Cox DA, Stone GW, et al, for the Stent Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study Group. Coronary angioplasty with or without stent implantation for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1949-1956. 62. George BS, Voorhees WD 3rd, Roubin GS, et al. Multicenter investigation of coronary stenting to treat acute or threatened closure after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993; 22:135-143. 63. Roubin GS, Cannon AD, Agrawal SK, et al. Intracoronary stenting for acute and threatened closure complicating percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1992;85:916-927. 64. Keane D, Azar AJ, de Jaegere P, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcome of elective stent implantation in small coronary vessels. Semin Interv Cardiol. 1996; 1:255-262. 65. Savage MP, Fischman DL, Rake R, et al. Efficacy of coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in small coronary arteries: Stent Restenosis Study (STRESS) Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:307-311. 66. Lau KW, He Q, Ding ZP, Johan A. Safety and efficacy of angiography-guided stent placement in small native coronary arteries of ,3.0 mm in diameter. Clin Cardiol. 1997;20:711-716. 67. Elezi S, Kastrati A, Neumann FJ, et al. Vessel size and long-term outcome after coronary stent placement. Circulation. 1998;98:1875-1880. 68. Akiyama T, Moussa I, Reimers B, et al. Angiographic and clinical outcome following coronary stenting of small vessels. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:16101618. 69. Chan CN, Tan AT, Koh TH, et al. Intracoronary stenting in the treatment of acute or threatened closure in angiographically small coronary arteries (,3.0 mm) complicating percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75:23-25.

©2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

70. Morice MC, Bradai R, Lefevre T, et al. Stenting small coronary arteries. J Invasive Cardiol. 1999;11: 337-340. 71. Koning R, Khalife K, Commeau P, et al. The BESMART (Bestent in Small ARTeries) Study [abstract]. Circulation. 1999;100(suppl I):I-503. 72. Savage MP, Fischman DL, Kada F, et al. A randomized comparison of elective stenting and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of small coronary arteries [abstract]. Circulation. 1999;100(suppl I):I-503. 73. Muller D, Lansky AJ, Kaul U, et al. Small native coronary vessel stenting [abstract]. Circulation. 1999; 100(suppl I):I-503. 74. Greenbaum AB, Popma JJ, O’Shaugnessy CD, et al. Bail-out stenting in small vessels [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;32(suppl A):I-68A. 75. Koning R, Chan C, Eltchaninoff H, et al. Primary stenting of de novo lesions in small coronary arteries. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998;45:235-238. 76. Al Suwaidi J, Garratt KN, Rihal CS, et al. Immediate and one-year outcome of coronary stent implantation in small coronary vessels using 2.5 mm stents [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35(suppl A):63A. 77. Cohen MG, Kong DF, Warner JJ, et al. Outcomes following interventions in small coronary arteries with the use of hand-crimped Palmaz-Schatz stents. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85:446-450. 78. Huang P, Levin T, Kabour A, Feldman T. Acute and late outcome after use of 2.5-mm intracoronary stents in small (,2.5 mm) coronary arteries. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000;49:121-126. 79. Kleiman NS, Califf RM. Results from latebreaking clinical trials sessions at ACCIS 2000 and ACC 2000. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:310-325. 80. Doucet S, Schalig MJ, Hilton D, et al. The SISA study: a randomized comparison of balloon angioplasty and stent to prevent restenosis in small arteries [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35(suppl A):8A. 81. Hirshfeld JW Jr, Schwartz JS, Jugo R, et al, for the M-HEART Investigators. Restenosis after coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:647-656. 82. Schomig A, Kastrati A, Dietz R, et al. Emergency coronary stenting for dissection during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23:1053-1060. 83. Bauters C, Hubert E, Prat A, et al. Predictors of restenosis after coronary stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:1291-1298. 84. Kobayashi Y, De Gregorio J, Kobayashi N, et al. Stented segment length as an independent predictor of restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:651-659. 85. O’Keefe JH Jr, Hartzler GO, Rutherford BD, et al. Left main coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1989; 64:144-147. 86. Eldar M, Schulhoff N, Herz I, et al. Results of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the left main coronary artery. Am J Cardiol. 1991;68:255-256. 87. Hartzler GO, Rutherford BD, McConahay DR, et al. “High-risk” percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1988;61:33G-37G. 88. Lopez JJ, Ho KK, Stoler RC, et al. Percutaneous treatment of protected and unprotected left main coronary stenoses with new devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:345-352. 89. Ellis SG, Tamai H, Nobuyoshi M, et al. Contemporary percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main coronary stenoses. Circulation. 1997;96:38673872. 90. Park SJ, Park SW, Hong MK, et al. Stenting of unprotected left main coronary artery stenoses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:37-42. 91. Wong P, Wong V, Tse KK, et al. A prospective study of elective stenting in unprotected left main coronary disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999;46: 153-159. 92. Di Mario, Colombo A. Trousers-Stents: how to choose the right size and shape. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997;41:197-199.

(Reprinted) JAMA, October 11, 2000—Vol 284, No. 14

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/4755/ on 01/20/2017

1835

CORONARY ARTERY STENTS 93. Baim DS. Is birfurcation stenting the answer? Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1996;37:314-316. 94. Al Suwaidi J, Berger PB, Rihal CS, et al. Immediate and long term outcome of intracoronary stent implantation for true bifurcation lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:929-936. 95. Pan M, Suarez de Lezo J, Medina A, et al. Simple and complex stent strategies for bifurcated coronary arterial stenosis involving the side branch origin. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83:1320-1325. 96. Yamashita T, Nishida T, Adamian MG, et al. Bifurctaion lesions: two stents versus one stent: immediate and follow-up results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35:1145-1151. 97. Serruys PW, de Bruyne B, de Sousa JE, et al, on behalf of the DEBATE II Investigators. DEBATE II: final results of the 6-month follow-up [abstract]. Eur Heart J. 1999;20(suppl):371. 98. Di Mario C, on behalf of the DESTINI-CFR (Doppler End-points Stent International Investigation) Study Group. Doppler-guided and QCA-guided aggressive PTCA has same target lesion revascularization of stent implantation [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33 (suppl A):47A. 99. Lafont A, Dubois-Rande JL, Steg PG, et al. The French Randomized Optimal Stenting Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:404-409. 100. Schomig A, Neumann FJ, Kastrati A, et al. A randomized comparison of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after the placement of coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1084-1089. 101. Leon MB, Baim DS, Popma JJ, et al. A clinical trial comparing three antithrombotic-drug regimens after coronary-artery stenting. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339:1665-1671. 102. Schuhlen H, Hadamitzky M, Walter H, et al. Major benefit from antiplatelet therapy for patients at high risk for adverse cardiac events after coronary PalmazSchatz stent placement. Circulation. 1997;95:20152021. 103. Bertrand ME, Legrand V, Boland J, et al. Randomized multicenter comparison of conventional anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy in unplanned and elective coronary stenting. Circulation. 1998;98:1597-1603. 104. Urban P, Macaya C, Rupprecht HJ, et al. Randomized evaluation of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy after coronary stent implantation in high-risk patients. Circulation. 1998;98:2126-2132. 105. Hall P, Nakamura S, Maiello L, et al. A randomized comparison of combined ticlopidine and aspirin therapy versus aspirin therapy alone after successful intravascular ultrasound-guided stent implantation. Circulation. 1996;93:215-222. 106. Bennett CL, Weinberg PD, Rozenberg-BenDror K, et al. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with ticlopidine. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 128:541-544. 107. CAPRIE Steering Committee. A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). Lancet. 1996; 348:1329-1339. 108. Bennett CL, Connors JM, Carwile JM, et al. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with clopidogrel. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1773-1777. 109. Urban P, Gershlick AH, Rupprecht H, Bertand ME. Efficacy of ticlopidine and clopidogrel on the rate of cardiac events after stent implantation: evidence from CLASSICS [abstract]. Circulation. 1999;100 (suppl):I-379. 110. Mu¨ller C, Bu¨ttner HJ, Petersen J, Roskamm H. A randomized comparison of clopidogrel and aspirin versus ticlopidine and aspirin after the placement of coronary-artery stents. Circulation. 2000;101:590-593. 111. Taniuchi M, Kurz HI, Smith SC, et al. Ticlid or Plavix Post-Stents (TOPPS) [abstract]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000;50:128. 112. Berger PB, Bell MR, Rihal CS, et al. Clopidogrel

versus ticlopidine after intracoronary stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:1891-1894. 113. Moussa I, Oetgen M, Roubin G, et al. Effectiveness of clopidogrel and aspirin versus ticlopidine and aspirin in preventing stent thrombosis after coronary stent implantation. Circulation. 1999;99:2364-2366. 114. Mishkel GJ, Aguirre FV, Ligon RW, et al. Clopidogrel as adjunctive antiplatelet therapy during coronary stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:1884-1890. 115. Mehran R, Dangas G. Ticlopidine versus clopidogrel in patients receiving coronary stents. Presented at: 11th Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics Course; September 25, 1999; Washington, DC. 116. L’Allier PL, Aronow HD, Cura FA, et al. Short term mortality lower with clopidogrel than ticlopidine following coronary artery stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35(suppl A):66A. 117. Plucinski DA, Scheltema K, Krusmark J, et al. A comparison of clopidogrel to ticlopidine therapy for the prevention of major adverse cardiac events at thirty days and six months following coronary stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35(suppl A):67A. 118. Calver AL, Blows LJ, Dawlkins KD, et al. The use of clopidogrel instead of ticlopidine after intracoronary stent insertions. Am Heart J. In press. 119. The EPIC Investigators. Use of a monoclonal antibody directed against the platelet glycoprotein IIb/ IIIa receptor in high-risk coronary angioplasty. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:956-961. 120. EPILOG Investigators. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/ IIIa receptor blockade and low-dose heparin during percutaneous coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1689-1696. 121. The CAPTURE Investigators. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of abciximab before and during coronary intervention in refractory unstable angina. Lancet. 1997;349:1429-1435. 122. Colombo A, Hall P, Nakamura S, et al. Intracoronary stenting without anticoagulation accomplished with intravascular ultrasound guidance. Circulation. 1995;91:1676-1688. 123. Karrillon GJ, Morice MC, Benveniste E, et al. Intracoronary stent implantation without ultrasound guidance and with replacement of conventional anticoagulation by antiplatelet therapy. Circulation. 1996; 94:1519-1527. 124. Schiele F, Meneveau N, Vuillemenot A, et al, for the RESIST Study Group. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in stent deployment on 6-month restenosis rate. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:320-328. 125. 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. 126. Hayase M, Oshima A, Cleman MW, et al. Relation between target vessel revascularization and minimum stent area by intravascular ultrasound (CRUISE trial) [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:386A. 127. Mintz GS, Hoffmann R, Mehran R, et al. Instent restenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81:7E-13E. 128. Mehran R, Dangas G, Abizaid AS, et al. Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis. Circulation. 1999;100:1872-1878. 129. Bauters C, Banos JL, Van Belle E, et al. Sixmonth angiographic outcome after successful repeat percutaneous intervention for in-stent restenosis. Circulation. 1998;97:318-321. 130. Mehran R, Mintz GS, Satler LF, et al. Treatment of in-stent restenosis with excimer laser coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1997;96:2183-2189. 131. Koster R, Hamm CW, Seabra-Gomes R, et al, for the Laser Angioplasty of Restenosed Stents (LARS) Investigators. Laser angioplasty of restenosed coronary stents: results of a multicenter surveillance trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:25-32. 132. Bottner RK, Hardigan KR. High-speed rotational ablation for in-stent restenosis. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997;40:144-149.

1836 JAMA, October 11, 2000—Vol 284, No. 14 (Reprinted)

133. Dauerman HL, Baim DS, Cutlip DE, et al. Mechanical debulking versus balloon angioplasty for the treatment of diffuse in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:277-284. 134. Dahl JV, Dietz U, Silber S, et al. Angioplasty versus rotational atherectomy for treatment of diffuse instent restenosis [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35(suppl A):63A. 135. Mehran R, Abizaid AS, Mintz GS, et al. Mechanisms and results of additional stent implantation to treat focal in-stent restenosis [abstract]. Circulation. 1997;96:I-219. 136. Elezi S, Kastrati A, Schuhlen H, et al. Stenting for restenosis of stented lesions [abstract]. Circulation. 1997;96:I-88. 137. LeFevre T, Louvard Y, Morice MC. In-stent restenosis: should we stent the stent? [abstract]. Circulation. 1997;96:I-88. 138. Goldberg SL, Loussararian AH, Di Mario C, et al. Stenting for in-stent restenosis [abstract]. Circulation. 1997;96:I-88. 139. Teirstein PS, Massullo V, Jani S, et al. Catheterbased radiotherapy to inhibit restenosis after coronary stenting. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1697-1703. 140. Teirstein PS, Massullo V, Jani S, et al. Threeyear clinical and angiographic follow-up after intracoronary radiation. Circulation. 2000;101:360-365. 141. Leon MB. Presented at: 11th Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics Conference; September 2226, 1999; Washington, DC. 142. Bertrand OF, Sipehia R, Mongrain R, et al. Biocompatibility aspects of new stent technology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:562-571. 143. Hehrlein C, Stintz M, Kinscherf R, et al. Pure betaparticle-emitting stents inhibit neointima formation in rabbits. Circulation. 1996;93:641-645. 144. Carter AJ, Laird JR, Bailey LR, et al. Effects of endovascular radiation from a beta-particle-emitting stent in a porcine coronary restenosis model. Circulation. 1996;94:2364-2368. 145. Amols HI. Methods to improve dose uniformity for radioactive stents in endovascular brachytherapy. Cardiovasc Radiat Med. 1999;1:270-277. 146. Moses JE, Ellis SG, Bailey SR, et al. Short-term (1 month) results of the dose response IRIS feasibility study of a beta-particle emitting radioisotope stent [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31(suppl ):350A. 147. Lansky AJ, Popma JJ, Colombo A, et al. Follow-up angiographic comparison of the low dose vs high dose phosphorus-32 radioactive isostent [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(suppl):17A. 148. Albiero R, Adamian M, Kobayashi N, et al. Shortand intermediate-term results of 32P radioactive betaemitting stent implantation in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2000;101:18-26. 149. Ikeda S, Bosch J, Banz K, Schneller P. Economic outcomes analysis of stenting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for patients with coronary artery disease in Japan. J Invasive Cardiol. 2000;12:194-199. 150. Rocha-Singh KJ, McShane KJ, Ligon R, Sung CH. One-year clinical outcomes and relative costs of primary infarct artery stenting versus angioplasty following systemic thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000;49:135-141. 151. Peterson ED, Cowper PA, DeLong ER, et al. Acute and long-term cost implications of coronary stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1610-1618. 152. Axel DI, Kunert W, Goggelmann C, et al. Paclitaxel inhibits arterial smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration in vitro and in vivo using local drug delivery. Circulation. 1997;96:636-645. 153. Herdeg C, Oberhoff M, Karsch KR. Antiproliferative stent coatings. Semin Interv Cardiol. 1998;3: 197-199. 154. Baumbach A, Herdeg C, Kluge M, et al. Local drug delivery. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999;47: 102-106.

©2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/4755/ on 01/20/2017