Comparison of thrombosis and restenosis risk from stent length of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents.

Selection of coronary stent length varies from covering only the zone of maximum obstruction to stenting from normal- to normal-appearing vessels. With bare metal stenting, for any given lesion there is a high restenotic risk associated with longer stent length. With drug-eluting stents, the relation between stent length and restenosis has not been evaluated. In the angiographic follow-up cohort of the SIRIUS trial that compared the sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent with the standard Bx Velocity stent (n = 699), we constructed a multiple regression model to predict 8-month percent diameter stenosis using the main effects of lesion length and excess stent length beyond the lesion length and adjusting for known predictors of restenosis. Stent length exceeded lesion length in 94% of lesions overall. Mean difference in length was 8.3 +/- 8.3 mm (mean lesion length 14.6 +/- 5.9 mm, mean stent length 22.9 +/- 9.6 mm). Stented lesion length and excess stent length were associated with absolute increases in percent diameter stenosis per 10 mm of 9.1% (p <0.0001) and 3.6% (p = 0.053) in the bare metal arm and 3.5% (p = 0.047) and 2.1% (p = 0.040) in the sirolimus-eluting stent arm. Although the effects of lesion length and excess stent length on restenosis were markedly decreased with sirolimus-eluting stents (vs bare metal stents), a small restenotic penalty is still paid for excessive stent length. Longer stent-to-lesion length strategies should be used only when a shorter stent is likely to result in incomplete lesion coverage and edge dissection, a strong determinant of stent thrombosis.

[1]  Jeffrey W Moses,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  E J Topol,et al.  Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease. Implications for patient selection. Multivessel Angioplasty Prognosis Study Group. , 1990, Circulation.

[3]  A. J. O’Malley,et al.  Effects of stent length and lesion length on coronary restenosis. , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[4]  Stent Thrombosis in the Modern Era A Pooled Analysis of Multicenter Coronary Stent Clinical Trials , 2001 .

[5]  F. Loop,et al.  Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). , 1988, Circulation.

[6]  E. Topol,et al.  Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. , 1995, Circulation.

[7]  Charles L. Brown,et al.  Analysis of 1-Year Clinical Outcomes in the SIRIUS Trial: A Randomized Trial of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus a Standard Stent in Patients at High Risk for Coronary Restenosis , 2004, Circulation.

[8]  D. Baim,et al.  Clinical restenosis after coronary stenting: perspectives from multicenter clinical trials. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  M. Hadamitzky,et al.  Influence of lesion length on restenosis after coronary stent placement. , 1999, The American journal of cardiology.

[10]  Gregg W Stone,et al.  A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  J. Reiber,et al.  A new approach for the quantification of complex lesion morphology: the gradient field transform; basic principles and validation results. , 1994, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  P. Serruys,et al.  A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  T. Ryan Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). , 1988, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.