Key result
Sirolimus-eluting stents linked to paradoxic exercise-induced adjacent coronary vasoconstriction compared with BMS.
Why the study?
Long-term effects of sirolimus-eluting stents on endothelial function and coronary vasomotor response to exercise are unknown.
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation affect coronary vasomotor response to exercise compared to bare-metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease?
Cohort (n=25)
Does sirolimus-eluting stent implantation affect coronary vasomotor response to exercise compared to bare-metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease?
Sirolimus-eluting stents are associated with exercise-induced paradoxic coronary vasoconstriction in adjacent vessel segments at 6 months, suggesting drug-induced endothelial dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to assess coronary vasomotor response to exercise after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation. BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-eluting stents have been shown to markedly reduce the incidence of angiographic and clinical restenosis. However, long-term effects of sirolimus on endothelial function are unknown. METHODS: Coronary vasomotion was evaluated with biplane quantitative coronary angiography at rest and during supine bicycle exercise in 25 patients with coronary artery disease. Eleven patients were treated with a bare-metal stent (BMS) (control group) and 14 patients underwent SES implantation (sirolimus group) for de novo coronary artery lesions. Both groups were studied 6 +/- 1 month after the intervention. Minimal luminal diameter; stent diameter; and proximal, distal, and reference vessel diameter were determined. RESULTS: The reference vessel showed exercise-induced vasodilation (+13 +/- 4%) in both groups. Vasomotion within the stented vessel segments was abolished. In controls, the adjacent segments proximal and distal to the stent showed exercise-induced vasodilation (+15 +/- 3% and +17 +/- 4%, respectively). In contrast, there was exercise-induced vasoconstriction of the proximal and distal vessel segments adjacent to SESs (-12 +/- 4% and -15 +/- 6%, respectively; p < 0.001 vs. corresponding segments of controls). Sublingual nitroglycerin was associated with maximal vasodilation of the proximal and distal vessel segments in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of a BMS does not affect physiologic response to exercise proximal and distal to the stent. However, SESs are associated with exercise-induced paradoxic coronary vasoconstriction of the adjacent vessel segments, although vasodilatory response to nitroglycerin is maintained. These observations suggest (drug-induced) endothelial dysfunction as the underlying mechanism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Togni et al. (2005) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease (n=25). Sirolimus-eluting stent vs. Bare-metal stent was evaluated on Exercise-induced vasodilation of the proximal vessel segment adjacent to the stent (p=<0.001). Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with paradoxic exercise-induced coronary vasoconstriction of adjacent vessel segments compared to bare-metal stents (proximal -12% vs +15%; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: