Sandwich Drug-Eluting Stenting: A Novel Method to Treat
High-Risk Coronary Lesions

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been established as a safe and effective tool in preventing in-stent restenosis and repeat revascularization in selected patients and lesions.^1,2 However, individual and procedure-related factors can reduce their inhibitory effect on neointimal hyperplasia.^3–5 Moreover, it has been shown that plaque morphology can affect not only the immediate stent implantation result,⁶ but even the mid- to long-term outcomes. This can occur by means of plaque prolapse, nonuniform strut and drug distribution,⁷ or exuberant neointimal hyperplasia. Unfortunately, currently available stent platforms may not perform optimally in cases of large plaque burden (such as in-stent restenosis)^8–10 or in vessels rich in elastic media (such as aorto-ostial lesions).¹¹ Thus, in such high-risk lesions, further strategies to limit or avoid restenosis are required. We describe a novel approach to treat selected lesions at high risk of restenosis when there is a suboptimal result following initial stenting secondary to plaque prolapse. The “sandwich” technique consists of the simultaneous implantation of two fully overlapping DES in the same target lesion. The hypothesis is that a double layer of drug-eluting stent struts might maximize plaque scaffolding while increasing local delivery of the antirestenotic agent. Methods Patient selection. Patients with significant coronary stenosis considered at high risk for recurrence were included in this series. Patients were considered to be at high risk of restenosis if any of the following criteria were present: ostial location in a vessel 3.5 mm or larger, severe plaque prolapse, multiple previous episodes of in-stent restenosis (including previous DES restenosis), 1 mm or more mismatch between stent size and visual estimated vessel size (usually similar to final balloon size). Procedure. The technique was carried out as follows: after vessel wiring and predilatation (whenever appropriate), 2 DES of identical size and length were implanted one inside the other with almost complete overlap in a two-step procedure. All the patients were pretreated with aspirin, a thienopyridine and intravenous heparin. Following the index procedure, at least 100 mg daily of aspirin, and clopidogrel 75 mg a day or ticlopidine 250 mg twice a day (2 cases), were prescribed to all patients for at least 6 months. In 6 cases, a conventional balloon was used, while in 3 cases, the lesion was prepared with a cutting balloon; in 1 lesion, directional atherectomy was performed with a suboptimal result. Two fully overlapping DES were then implanted, one after the other in a sandwich fashion. Implanted stents had diameters in the 2.5 to 3.5 mm range. High-pressure post-dilatation (15–28 atm) after the second stent implantation was performed in 7 cases to optimize the angiographic result (with a noncompliant balloon in 2 cases). Coronary angiograms were analyzed using a validated edge detection system (CMS, version 5.2, MEDIS, The Netherlands). Minimal lumen diameter (MLD), reference vessel diameter (RVD) and percent diameter stenosis at baseline, post-first stent implantation, post-second stent implantation and at follow-up were measured, respectively. Acute gain was defined as the difference between the MLD immediately after the procedure and the baseline. Angiographic restenosis was defined as diameter stenosis greater than or equal to 50% by quantitative coronary angiography (Figure 1: baseline; Figure 2: post-first stent implantation; Figure 3: post-second stent implantation and post-dilatation; Figure 4: angiographic follow-up). Endpoints and analysis. The endpoints were technical feasibility assessed by means of angiographic success and procedural success, the early (30-day) rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularization (TLR). At 9 months, all patients were evaluated for the occurrence of MACE, restenosis and measurement of QCA parameters. Results From July 2002 until November 2004, we enrolled 10 patients with lesions considered at very high risk for restenosis. Specifically, double DES were implanted for the following reasons: (1) in 7 patients because the target lesion was an ostial lesion on a vessel 3.5 mm or larger (5 of them had an in-stent restenosis); (2) in 2 patients because of 2 or more events of in-stent restenosis, including one DES restenosis; (3) and in 1 patient because of severe plaque prolapse following implantation of the first DES (Table 1). Angiographic success was achieved in all cases. In-hospital and 1-month outcomes were similarly uneventful. A scheduled angiographic control was performed after 4–6 months (at an earlier time if clinically suggested) in 10 (100%) of the cases. At long-term follow-up (mean 10.1 ± 1.8 months), there were no deaths, myocardial infarctions, or stent thromboses; TLR was carried out in 3 cases (30%) due to restenosis. Angiographic analysis showed that minimum lumen diameter (MLD) changed from 0.89 ± 0.26 mm preprocedure, to 2.78 ± 0.7 mm after initial stent implantation, with a subsequent increase to 3.15 ± 0.61 mm after implantation of the second stent and post-dilatation (p 12 Despite the fact that this experience is limited to 10 patients, it is comforting to know that no cases of stent thrombosis occurred, thus an initial and preliminary statement about the safety of this approach can be made. Given the double strut layer and the risk for limited side branch access or branch compromise, bifurcation lesions are probably a relative contraindication to the sandwich approach, and a small increase in the risk of non-Q wave myocardial infarction can be anticipated in vessels with high plaque burden due to the potential for small branch closure. In addition, we must remember that despite the favorable safety profile of the sandwich in this study, a number of reports have suggested that the risk of stent thrombosis might increase with DES, both acutely and long-term.¹³ Such risk may be higher in lesions treated with the sandwich, given the double metallic strut layer, the potential for stent underexpansion, and the higher drug dosage that may impair prompt endothelialization. In view of this risk, it is prudent to prescribe double antiplatelet therapy for at least 6 months in patients treated with the sandwich and to utilize this approach in large vessels where the metal-to-artery ratio will still be kept at low values. Conclusion This study provides the first technical description and early- and mid-term results of a novel double DES implantation technique for high-risk patients and lesions.

1. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. for the RAVEL Study Group. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stents with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1773–1780. 2. Tanabe K, Serruys PW, Degertekin M, et al. for the TAXUS II Study group. Chronic arterial responses to polymer-controlled paclitaxel-eluting stents: Comparison with bare metal stents by serial intravascular ultrasound analyses: Data from randomized TAXUS-II trial. Circulation 2004:109:196–200. 3. Chieffo A, Stankovic G, Bonizzoni E, et al. Early and mid-term results of drug-eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main. Circulation 2005;116:791–795. 4. Orlic D, Stankovic G, Sangiorgi G, et al. Preliminary experience with the frontrunner coronary catheter: Novel device dedicated to mechanical revascularization of chronic total occlusions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;64:146–152. 5. Lemos PA, Serruys PW, van Domburg RT, et al. Unrestricted utilization of sirolimus eluting stents compared with conventional bare stent implantation in the “real world”: The Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital registry. Circulation 2004;109:190–195. 6. Kereiakes DJ, Choo JK, Young JJ, Broderick TM. Thrombosis and drug-eluting stents: A critical Appraisal. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2004;5:9–15. 7. Takebayashi H, Mintz GS, Carlier SG, et al. Nonuniform strut distribution correlates with more neointimal hyperplasia after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Circulation 2004;110:3430–3434. 8. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. for the SIRIUS Investigators. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1315–1323. 9. Iakovou I, Ge L, Michev I, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation versus cutting balloon angioplasty for coronary in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 2004;94:1297–1300. 10. Kastrati A, Mehili J, von Beckerath N, et al. for the ISAR-DESIRE Study investigation. Sirolimus-eluting stent or paclitaxel-eluting stent vs balloon angioplasty for prevention of recurrences in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;12:165–171. 11. Iakovou I, Ge L, Michev I, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in aorto-ostial lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:967–971. 12. Ratib K, Doshi SN, Towend JN. Double-stenting of an ostial left main-stem lesion for elastic recoil. Int J Cardiol 2005;102:357–358. 13. McFadden EP, Stabile E, Regar E, et al. Late thrombosis in drug-eluting coronary stents after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. Lancet 2004;364:1519–1521.