Efficacy of biolimus A9-eluting stent for treatment of right coronary ostial lesion with intravascular ultrasound guidance: a multi-center registry
- 87 Downloads
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a biolimus A9-eluting stent in patients with a right coronary artery (RCA) ostial lesion. Ostial lesions of the RCA have been a limitation of percutaneous coronary intervention even in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era. However, clinical outcomes after the deployment of a second generation DES to an RCA ostial lesion with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance have not been fully elucidated. From September 2011 to March 2013, 74 patients were enrolled in 17 centers from Japan. RCA ostial lesion was defined as de novo significant stenotic lesion located within 15 mm from ostium. IVUS was used for all cases to confirm the location of ostium and evaluate stent coverage of ostium. Patients with hemodialysis were excluded. The primary endpoint is a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 1 year. Forty two percent of patients had multi-vessel disease. Angiographically severe calcification was observed in 26% of the lesions. The mean stent diameter was 3.3 ± 0.3 mm (3.5 mm, 72%, 3.0 mm, 25%, and 2.75 and 2.5 mm, 3%), stent length was 17.5 ± 5.8 mm, and dilatation pressure of stenting was 15.6 ± 4.1 atm. RCA ostium was covered by stent in all lesions in IVUS findings. Post dilatation was performed for 64% of lesions (balloon size 3.7 ± 0.6 mm). MACE rate at 1 year was 5.4% (target lesion revascularization 5.4%, myocardial infarction 1.2%, and no cardiac death). The biolimus A9-eluting stent for RCA ostial lesions with IVUS guidance showed favorable results at 1-year follow-up.
KeywordsRight coronary artery Ostial lesion Intravascular ultrasound guidance Biolimus A9-eluting stent
- 9.Kyono H, Kozuma K, Shiratori Y, Maeno Y, Iino R, Takada K, et al. Angiographic and clinical outcomes of 100 consecutive severe calcified lesions requiring rotational atherectomy prior to sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in hemodialysis and non-hemodialysis patients. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2011;26(2):98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar