Search

Background: Transcatheter device closure (TCDC) and intraoperative device closure (IODC) have emerged as minimally invasive methods in the treatment of secundum atrial septal defects (ASDs), but the long-term safety and efficacy remains uncertain for the large ASDs., Hypothesis: TCDC may be as safe and efficacious as IODC for closure of large ASDs in terms of long-term clinical outcomes., Methods: Ninety-two patients who had ASDs with a defect diameter of ≥30 mm were included in this study. The patients received either TCDC (n = 42) or IODC (n = 50). An Amplatzer septal occluder was used in both groups. The dumbbell-like device deploying technique was introduced in the TCDC group. Physical exams, electrocardiography, and echocardiography were performed preprocedurally and postprocedurally at the index follow-up visits., Results: The procedural immediate success rate was 97.6% for TCDC and 98.0% for IODC (P = 0.328). The rate of periprocedural complications was 9.5% for TCDC and 28.0% for IODC (P = 0.026). The mean hospital stay was 7.5 ± 2.7 days for TCDC and 11.9 ± 3.8 days for IODC (P < 0.001). For the mean follow-up of 5.4 ± 0.5 years, there were no cardiac deaths and late complications in either group. No significant residual shunts were documented, and symptoms were significantly improved in both groups. Right and left ventricular diameter, pulmonary artery diameter, and pulmonary systolic pressure were all significantly decreased in both groups (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: The present study confirmed the long-term safety and efficacy for closing a large ASD either by TCDC or IODC. Either of them could become an effective alternative to the surgery for large ASD closure. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The optimal stenting strategy for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) remains uncertain. The present study observed technical feasibility and reliability, 9-month clinical and angiographic outcomes of the modified culotte stenting (MCS) in the treatment of CBLs with drug-eluting stents., Methods: A total of 34 consecutive patients with CBLs that required stenting the parent vessel (PV), the main branch (MB) and the side branch (SB) were included. All patients were first assigned to receive MCS for CBL interventions (per MCS), and might be switched to receive the double-kissing-crush stenting (DKS) in case of temporally acute branch occlusion (per protocol)., Results: The immediate angiographic or procedural success was achieved in 33/34 (97%) lesions (patients) per MCS, 34/34 (100%) lesions (patients) per protocol with 100% successful final balloon kissing. The long-term clinical success at 9 months was 94% per MCS and 94% per protocol, only 2 patients had reoccurrence of angina but none of them needed target lesion revascularization. There were no procedure-related biomarker elevation, no in-stent thrombosis peri-procedurally and at 9-month follow-up. Quantitative coronary angiography data at 9 months showed that in-stent (6%) or in-segment (6%) binary stenosis was infrequent, and minimal lumen diameter was significantly reduced but late lumen loss was acceptable with only (0.10 ± 0.14) mm for PV, (0.21 ± 0.23) mm for MB and (0.27 ± 0.32) mm for SB., Conclusions: MCS for treatment of CBLs that required dual-stent implantation was technically easier and safer, readily to complete final balloon kissing, and was associated with high immediate success and optimal 9-month outcomes.

Background: The optimal stenting strategy in true coronary artery bifurcation lesions has not been determined. In this study, a strategy of always stenting both the main vessel and the side branch (MV plus SB) was compared with a strategy of stenting the MV only with optional stenting of the SB. Stents used were sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents., Methods: A total of 108 patients with true coronary bifurcation lesions were randomly assigned to either routine stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) in both the branches (group MV plus SB) or provisional stenting with DES placement in the main branch and DES placement in the SB only if MV stenting alone provided inadequate results (group MV). The primary end points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 8 months, including myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis or target vessel revascularization by either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting., Results: Angiographic follow-up revealed 28.91+/-20.43% stenosis of the SB after provisional stenting and 18.93+/-15.34% (P<0.01) after routine stenting. The corresponding binary restenosis rates were 35.2 and 14.8% (P=0.015). SB stents were implanted in 16.7% of patients in the provisional stenting group and 94.4% of patients in the routine stenting group. In the main branch, binary restenosis rates prebifurcation were 11.1% after provisional and 7.4% after routine stenting (P=0.51), whereas binary restenosis rates postbifurcation were 14.8 and 9.3% (P=0.38), respectively. The overall 8-month incidence of target lesion reintervention was 31.5% after provisional and 7.4% after routine stenting (P<0.01), and cumulative MACE were 38.9 and 11.1% (P<0.01), respectively., Conclusion: Routine stenting significantly improved the MACE outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention in true coronary bifurcation and bifurcation angle of 60 or less lesions as compared with provisional stenting.

Background: As a kind of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) made in China, Firebird SES is more effective than bare metal stent (BMS) and not inferior to Cypher SES for short coronary lesions in terms of reduction of restenosis and revascularization. However, Firebird SES does not show any benefits in patients with a very long coronary lesion (VLCL). The present study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Firebird SES for VLCL by comparison of Cypher SES and BMS., Methods: In this prospective, nonrandomized and comparative study, eligible patients with de novo coronary lesion (> or = 30 mm) between January 2005 and June 2006 were allocated into Firebird SES group, Cypher SES group or BMS group. They were subjected to an angiographic follow-up of 6 months and a clinical follow-up of 12 months. The primary endpoints constitute the in-stent and in-segment restenosis rates at 6 months. The secondary endpoint was defined as a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) that was a 12-month combined endpoint of all-cause deaths, reinfarction or in-stent thrombosis, and target-lesion revascularization. The 12-month in-stent thrombosis was also evaluated to address the safety of Firebird SES implantation exceptionally., Results: A total of 468 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of 113 patients who were finally included according to the prior inclusion and exclusion criteria, 39 (41 lesions) were treated with Firebird SES, 37 (39 lesions) with Cypher SES, and 37 (37 lesions) with BMS. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the three groups; but there were longer lesions, more frequent use of overlapping stent in the Firebird SES group and the Cypher SES group. Angiographic follow-up showed that the rates of binary stenosis were similar between the Firebird SES group and the Cypher SES group (in-segment: 14.6% vs 12.8%, relative risk (RR) 1.14, P = 0.81; in-stent: 9.8% vs 10.3%, RR 0.95, P = 0.94), and significantly lower than those in the BMS group (in-segment: vs. 36.1%, RR 0.41 or 0.36, P = 0.04 or 0.03, respectively; in-stent: vs 30.6%, RR 0.32 or 0.34, P = 0.03 or 0.04, respectively). The total MACE rate up to 12 months was also similar in both SES groups (7.7% vs 5.4%, P = 1.000), and significantly lower than that in the BMS group (27.0%, P = 0.034 or 0.024, respectively). The in-stent thrombosis rate in the follow-up period was 2.6% in the Firebird SES group, not higher in the Cypher SES and BMS groups (2.7% and 2.7%, respectively, P = 1.000)., Conclusions: In the treatment of VLCL, Firebird SES would be safer and more effective than BMS. Firebird SES may be not inferior to Cypher SES in terms of restenosis and MACE.