Procedural Safety and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients Receiving Ultra-Long Everolimus-Eluting Stent: A Single-Center Real-World Experience

Nagendra Boopathy Senguttuvan, Rahul Kongara, Shanmugasundram Sadhanandham, Nishok Victory Srinivasan, Santhosh Kumar Periyasamy, Balakrishnan Vinod Kumar, Ravi Shankar P, Meena Iyer, Mahalakshmi Ramadoss, Vinodhini Subramanian, Jayanthy Venkata Balasubramaniyan, Preetam Krishnamurthy, Sankaran Ramesh, Panchanatham Manokar, Thoddi Ramamurthy Muralidharan, Jayanthi Sathyanarayana Murthy, Sadagopan Thanikachalam

Abstract


Background: Diffuse long coronary lesions are difficult to treat percutaneously. The aim of the present study was to assess the procedural safety and long-term efficacy of the ultra-long (48-mm) drug-eluting stent Xience Xpedition.

Methods: This was an investigator-initiated, observational, all-comers study. A total of 92 patients with 93 lesions were enrolled in the study from October 2016 to October 2020. The primary outcome of the study was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome and procedural success.

Results: The mean (standard deviation (SD)) age of the participants was 58.8 (10.8) years. More than half of the patients had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at presentation (55.4%). Ten patients were in cardiogenic shock (CGS; 10.8%). Most of the lesions were located in the left anterior descending artery (48.3%). American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) type C was the most common lesion type amongst the intervened vessels (46.74%), with a mean syntax score (SD) of 16.99 (8.89). The mean stent diameter used was 2.77 mm (0.25). MACE was observed in 7.6% of patients studied at a median follow-up of 24 months. MACE was significantly lower in the population without CGS, occurring in only 2.4% of the patients; a significant difference in MACE was observed in patients with and without CGS (P < 0.001). Procedural success was obtained in 89.2% of total population; however, 96.3% of patients without CGS had procedural success.

Conclusions: The deployment of the ultra-long 48-mm Xience Xpedition stent is feasible, safe, and effective; and it was associated with a good intermediate-term clinical outcome.




Cardiol Res. 2022;13(2):104-109
doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1357

Keywords


48-mm stent; Xience; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Coronary artery disease

Full Text: HTML PDF
 

Browse  Journals  

 

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics

 

World Journal of Oncology

Gastroenterology Research

Journal of Hematology

 

Journal of Medical Cases

Journal of Current Surgery

Clinical Infection and Immunity

 

Cardiology Research

World Journal of Nephrology and Urology

Cellular and Molecular Medicine Research

 

Journal of Neurology Research

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics

 

 
       
 

Cardiology Research, bimonthly, ISSN 1923-2829 (print), 1923-2837 (online), published by Elmer Press Inc.                     
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.

This is an open-access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted
non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International CC-BY-NC 4.0)


This journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals,
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

website: www.cardiologyres.org   editorial contact: editor@cardiologyres.org
Address: 9225 Leslie Street, Suite 201, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H6, Canada

© Elmer Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editors and Elmer Press Inc. This website is provided for medical research and informational purposes only and does not constitute any medical advice or professional services. The information provided in this journal should not be used for diagnosis and treatment, those seeking medical advice should always consult with a licensed physician.