Comparison of 2‐year clinical outcomes between zotarolimus‐, sirolimus‐, and paclitaxel‐eluting stents in real life clinical practice

Background : There are few studies comparing the long‐term efficacy and safety of the zotarolimus‐eluting stent (ZES) with sirolimus‐ (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) in the unselected cohorts that were subject to real life clinical practice. Methods : Total 2,769 patient who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the three drug‐eluting stents (DES) between April 2006 and July 2008 were analyzed retrospectively. A total of 1,152 patients were treated with SES, 810 with PES, and 807 with ZES. The primary analysis endpoint was cumulative rate of target‐lesion failure (TLF) at 24 months, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target‐vessel‐related myocardial infarction (MI), and target‐lesion revascularization (TLR). Results : At 24 months, the incidence of TLF was significantly lower in the SES group compared with the ZES (7.6% vs. 11.3%, HR = 0.66, CI = 0.49–0.88, P = 0.005) or the PES group (7.6% vs. 10.2%, HR = 0.74, CI = 0.55–0.99, P = 0.048), while similar between the PES and the ZES groups (HR = 0.89, CI = 0.66–1.20, P = 0.443). The difference was mostly driven by higher rate of TLR in the ZES and PES groups compared with the SES group, mostly within the first year post‐PCI. However, the rate of hard endpoints (cardiac death or nonfatal MI) was similar among the three groups. These results were reproduced in the propensity score‐matched cohort.Conclusions : This observational study shows that the use of SES is superior to PES or ZES for the TLF in the overall and matched analysis. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Decreased risk of stent fracture‐related restenosis between paclitaxel‐eluting stents and sirolimus eluting stents: Results of long‐term follow‐up

Objective: To compare the outcomes between paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) for the treatment of drug‐eluting stent (DES) fracture. Background: DES fracture is considered as an important predictor of in‐stent restenosis (ISR). However, little data are available evaluating the optimal treatment for this complication of coronary stenting. Methods: From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008, patients with DES ISR treated with a second DES were identified and evaluated for stent fracture. Stent fracture was defined by the presence of strut separation in multiple angiographic projections, assessed by two independent reviewers. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 6 and 12 months were the primary end points. Results: Of 131 lesions with DES ISR treated with a second DES, we found 24 patients (24 lesions, 18.2%) with angiographically confirmed stent fracture. Of these, 20 patients (20 lesions) treated with either PES (n = 11/55%) or SES (n = 9/45%) were included in the study. TLR at 6 months occurred in 9% of patients treated with PES and 22% of those treated with SES (P = 0.41). After 12 months, TLR was 9% and 55.5%, respectively (P = 0.024). Conclusions: This study demonstrates a high incidence of stent fracture in patients presenting with DES ISR in need of further treatment with another DES. The suggested association between treatment of stent fracture‐associated DES ISR with PES as compared with SES, and better long‐term outcomes, is in need of confirmation by larger prospective registries and randomized trials. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Clinical outcomes of drug‐eluting versus bare‐metal in‐stent restenosis

In‐stent restenosis (ISR) is a challenging syndrome that affects drug‐eluting stents and bare‐metal stents. However, data comparing the outcomes of drug‐eluting versus bare‐metal ISR are limited. Our objective was to evaluate the long‐term clinical outcomes of drug‐eluting versus bare‐metal ISR. Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention at Cleveland Clinic for ISR from 05/1999 to 06/2007 were included. Unadjusted outcomes were tested using Kaplan‐Meier curves followed by multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards analyses. Twenty seven variables, including type of stent used to treat ISR and procedural date, were included. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were components of the primary endpoint. Of 931 patients identified, 225 had drug‐eluting ISR and 706 had bare‐metal ISR. There were 279 cumulative events for a median follow‐up of 3.2 years. The primary endpoint was not different between drug eluting and bare‐metal ISR (22% versus 33%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79–1.66; P = 0.49). The secondary endpoints of death (8% versus 16%, adjusted HR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56–1.98; P = 0.88), MI (4% versus 5%, adjusted HR 1.48; 95% CI, 0.54–4.04; P = 0.45), and TLR (15% versus 16%, adjusted HR 1.30; 95% CI, 0.81–2.11; P = 0.28) were also not different. This study represents the largest analysis comparing drug‐eluting to bare‐metal ISR. On multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, drug‐eluting and bare‐metal ISR have similar long term outcomes. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison between sirolimus‐ and paclitaxel‐eluting stents in complex patient and lesions subsets

Background : Sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) both significantly reduce the need for repeat intervention compared to bare metal stents. Studies comparing the clinical outcomes of these stents in noncomplex subsets of patients and lesions demonstrate a similar safety and efficacy profile. The data for more complex subsets of patients and lesions remains conflicting. This study aimed to compare SES with PES in a selected population with a broad range of complex features. Methods and Results : The patient population consisted of 1,591 consecutive patients with complex features undergoing drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation. In the SES group there were 1,095 patients (1,653 lesions) and in the PES group 496 patients (802 lesions). In‐hospital, 30‐day, and 12‐month clinical outcomes were compared between groups. No discernable difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between SES and PES was detected at intermediate and longer‐term follow‐up (SES 22.4% vs. PES 20.5% at 12 months; P = 0.407). A trend toward increased angiographically documented stent thrombosis was observed in the SES group at both 3 and 12 months (SES 2.2% vs. PES 0.8% at 12 months; P = 0.051). When adopting the more inclusive definition of probable stent thrombosis, this trend was no longer seen. After adjusting for baseline differences between the two groups, there still remained no difference in MACE between SES and PES (HR 1.051 [CI 0.826–1.339] P = 0.685). The trend toward increased angiographically documented stent thrombosis in the SES group remained after adjustment for baseline differences (HR 2.836 [CI 0.968–8.311] P = 0.057). Conclusions : In a selected population with complex disease the rate of MACE was comparable between SES and PES, with higher overall rates of thrombosis and MACE compared to a noncomplex population. Thus, the focus should be directed to prevent late complications in this complex subset regardless of stent type selection. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for coronary bifurcations intervention

Backgrounds : Relative efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) compared with paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) remains controversial. It is unknown whether there are different effect and safety in coronary bifurcation treatment between SES and PES. Objectives : The meta‐analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of SES and PES in coronary bifurcation intervention. Methods : Five head‐to‐head clinical trials of SES versus PES in coronary bifurcation intervention were included. A total of 2,567 patients were involved in the meta‐analysis. Mean follow‐up period ranged from 6 to 35 months. The primary end points were the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) and main‐branch restenosis. Secondary end points were target vessel revascularization (TVR), cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and stent thrombosis. Results : Compared with PES, SES significantly reduced the risk of TLR (5.3% vs. 10.6%, odds ratio (OR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.38–0.70, P < 0.001), main‐branch restenosis (4.59% vs. 12.59%, OR 0.31; 95% CI = 0.18–0.55, P < 0.001) and TVR (7.05% vs. 12.57%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.42–0.81, P = 0.001) in coronary bifurcation intervention. In addition, SES group also had a significantly lower incidence of MACE (8.20% vs. 14.13%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.40–0.84, P = 0.004) than PES group. However, there were no statistical difference with respect to the incidence of cardiac death (1.64% vs. 1.09%, P = 0.19) and stent thrombosis (0.84% vs. 1.08%, P = 0.64) between SES and PES groups. Conclusions : Compared with PES, SES reduced the incidence of TLR, main‐branch restenosis and MACE in coronary bifurcation intervention, while the risk of stent thrombosis was similar between SES and PES groups. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Comparison of three‐year clinical outcomes between sirolimus‐versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents in diabetic patients: Prospective randomized multicenter trial

Background : Three‐year follow‐up of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) and the predictors of MACEs in diabetic patients after sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) implantation have not been reported. Methods : Diabetic patients with de novo coronary lesions (169 patients with 190 lesions) were randomly assigned prospectively to either SES or PES. Results : Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The rates of MACEs [5.9% (n = 5) in the SES vs. 9.5% (n = 8) in the PES Group, P = 0.374] and definite stent thrombosis [1.2% (n = 1) in the SES vs. 3.6% (n = 3) in the PES Group, P = 0.368] were similar in the two groups during the three‐year follow‐up. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that insulin treatment was the only independent predictor of MACE [odds ratio (OR) 8.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.25–22.76, P < 0.001] and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (OR 9.50, 95% CI 3.07–29.44, P < 0.001) during the three‐year follow‐up. Conclusions : The rates of MACEs, TVR, and stent thrombosis during the three‐year follow‐up were similar in the SES and PES Groups. Insulin treatment was a main predictor of MACEs and TVR during the three‐year follow‐up after either SES or PES implantation. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Evaluation of the effects of everolimus‐eluting and paclitaxel‐eluting stents on target lesions with jailed side branches: 2‐year results from the SPIRIT III randomized trial

Objective: To evaluate whether an everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) with thinner stent struts and polymer results in less periprocedural myonecrosis and adverse outcomes. Background: Higher periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) rates have been reported with the TAXUS® EXPRESS² paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) compared to the bare metal EXPRESS²® stent due to more frequent side branch compromise, presumably attributable to the thickness of the stent/polymer on the PES. Methods: In the SPIRIT III trial, we identified 113 patients in the XIENCE V® EES group and 63 patients in the TAXUS EXPRESS² PES group who met the criteria of having a lesion with a jailed side branch (<2 mm diameter, and <50% stenosis). Two‐year clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results: A periprocedural increase in Creatine Kinase‐MB >1× upper normal level occurred in 9.0% of EES compared to 29.7% of PES patients with jailed side branches, P = 0.01. Through 2 years, major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, MI, or target lesion revascularization [TLR]) occurred in 6.8% of EES and 19.0% of PES jailed side branch patients (P = 0.03), with numerically lower rates of MI (2.9% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.07) and TLR (3.9% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.17) in the EES group, with comparable rates of cardiac death (1.9% vs. 1.7%, P = 1.00). Conclusions: In this post‐hoc analysis of the SPIRIT III RCT, patients undergoing stenting of target lesions with jailed side branches with the thin strut and polymer XIENCE V EES compared to the thicker strut TAXUS PES had lower rates of MACE through 2 years due to fewer MIs and TLRs. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Everolimus‐Eluting Stents Versus Sirolimus‐ or Paclitaxel‐Eluting Stents: Two‐Year Results from the Guthrie Health Off‐Label Stent (GHOST) Registry

Objectives

We sought to compare the safety and effectiveness of everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) versus first generation drug‐eluting stents (FG‐DES; sirolimus‐eluting stent [SES] or paclitaxel‐eluting stent [PES]).

Methods

In 2,126 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we compared the 2‐year incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) between the EES versus FG‐DES groups. Secondary end‐points included all‐cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), death or MI, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, including death, MI, ST, or TVR). Further, we evaluated these end‐points in 2 propensity‐matched subgroups: EES versus SES; EES versus PES.

Results

Complete 2‐year follow‐up was available in 1,911 (90%) patients. Compared to FG‐DES, implantation of EES was associated with trends towards lower ST (0.9% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.068) and TVR (3.8% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.052), which persisted after adjustment for baseline differences (for ST, adjusted hazard ratio, HR 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.10–1.02, P = 0.053; for TVR, HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.22–0.75, P = 0.004). Compared to SES, EES implantation was associated with lower TVR and a trend towards lower ST. Compared to PES, EES implantation was associated with less ST and TVR and trends towards lower death/MI and MACE. In the EES group, no ST was seen after the first 3 months.

Conclusions

The use of EES compared to FG‐DES appears to be associated with reductions in ST and TVR at 2‐year follow‐up. Improved outcomes with EES are observed in comparison with SES as well as PES. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:153–162)

     

Comparison of 2‐year clinical outcomes with sirolimus and paclitaxel‐eluting stents for patients with diabetes: Results of the Registro Regionale AngiopLastiche Emilia‐Romagna Registry

Background: Long‐term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) compared to paclitaxel‐eluting‐stents (PES) in unselected diabetics in routine practice is still debated. Objective: This study compared the 2‐year incidence of MACE (all‐cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization) of SES and PES in a real‐world setting of patients with diabetes. Design: Observational, multicenter, nonrandomized study. Setting: Prospective web‐based registry (REAL Registry; study period, 2002–2005) comprising all 13 hospitals performing PCI. Patients: Among the 945 eligible patients treated with either SES alone (n = 606) or PES alone (n = 339), 29% were insulin‐requiring, 72% had multivessel coronary disease, 26% had prior myocardial infarction and 10% had poor left ventricular function. Measurements: Unadjusted and propensity score‐adjusted 2‐year clinical outcome. Results: After propensity score adjustment, 2‐year MACE incidence in the SES and PES groups was equivalent (23.3% vs. 23.7%, HR 1.01, 95%CI 0.72–1.42, P = 0.96). Adjusted 2‐year angiographic stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% of the SES patients versus 2.6% of the PES patients (P = 0.15). In this large, real‐world, diabetic population treated with DES, there was no difference in outcome between SES and PES. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the long‐term safety of different types of DES in patients with diabetes. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Four‐year clinical outcome of sirolimus‐ and paclitaxel‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents for the percutaneous treatment of stable coronary artery disease

Background : There are limited data on the long‐term safety and efficacy profile of coronary stent implantation in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objective : We aimed to assess the 4‐year clinical outcome in patients who received a bare‐metal stent (BMS), sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), or a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) for the percutaneous treatment of stable angina in our center during 2000–2005. Methods : In the study period, a total of 2,449 consecutive patients (BMS = 1,005; SES = 373; and PES = 1071) underwent a PCI as part of three historical PCI‐cohorts for stable angina and were routinely followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : At 4 years follow‐up, 264 BMS patients (26.8%) had a MACE, compared to 75 SES patients (20.9%) and 199 PES patients (23.9%). Multivariate analysis showed that SES and PES were superior to BMS with respect to MACE [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47–0.81; HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55–0.82, respectively]. The occurrence of MACE was significantly lower in the SES and PES population, primarily due to less target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) procedures (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37–0.75; HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62–0.81, respectively). The occurrence of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis was equally rare with each stent type. There were no significant differences between SES and PES on death, myocardial infarction, TVR, and MACE. Conclusion : These findings suggest that SES and PES result in decreased TVR procedures and MACE compared to BMS at 4 years follow‐up. SES or PES implantation should be the preferred choice over BMS for patients with stable CAD undergoing PCI. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for treatment of bare‐metal in‐stent restenosis

Objectives : We compared the long‐term outcomes of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare‐metal stents (BMS) for treatment of bare‐metal in‐stent restenosis (ISR). Background : There are no randomized trials or observational studies directly comparing the safety and efficacy of DES versus BMS for treatment of bare‐metal ISR. Methods : We examined data on all patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR at Cleveland Clinic between 05/1999 and 06/2007. We compared the efficacy and safety of DES to BMS for treating bare‐metal ISR. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were individual components of the primary endpoint. Results : Of the 931 patients identified over 8 years, 706 had bare‐metal ISR and met our study criteria. Of the 706 patients with bare‐metal ISR, 362 were treated with DES and 344 with BMS. There were 230 cumulative events for a median follow‐up of 3.2 years. After adjusting for 27 variables, DES were associated with lower primary endpoint compared to BMS for treatment of bare‐metal ISR (21% vs. 45%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–0.95; P = 0.03). The individual secondary endpoint of death (8% vs. 24%, P = 0.005) favored DES, but MI (3% vs. 8%, P = 0.31), and TLR (13% vs. 20%, P = 0.23) failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions : In our multivariate analysis of patients with bare‐metal ISR, DES use was associated with significantly lower death, MI, or TLR when compared to BMS. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol‐mandated angiographic follow‐up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug‐eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow‐up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow‐up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Prospective randomized comparison of sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for the treatment of acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness of the Sirolimus‐ (SES) and Paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) in primary angioplasty for acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background: It has been reported that SES and PES have been more effective than bare‐metal stents in reducing restenosis and cardiac events in a broad range of patients with coronary artery disease. However, it is unknown whether there may be differences between these two drug‐eluting stents in terms of efficacy in the setting of acute STEMI. Methods: Acute STEMI patients (n = 308) undergoing primary angioplasty were randomly assigned to SES (n = 154) or PES (n = 154) deployment. The routine angiographic follow‐up was performed at 6 months and clinical follow‐up data was obtained at 12 months. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Results: The baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Two patients (all from the PES group) experienced stent thrombosis (1 acute and 1 subacute). The SES group revealed lower in‐segment restenosis (5.9% vs. 14.8%, P = 0.03) and in‐segment late loss (0.09 ± 0.45 vs. 0.33 ± 0.68 mm, P = 0.002) than PES group on follow‐up angiography. Twelve‐month TLR rates (2.6% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.17) were similar between two groups. MACE rates were lower in the SES group than in the PES group, but it did not reach statistical significance (5.8% vs. 11.7%, P = 0.07). Conclusion: In the setting of primary angioplasty for STEMI, there were no statistically significant differences between the SES and the PES in terms of 12‐month MACE. However, binary angiographic in‐segment restenosis and in‐segment late loss were significantly lower in the SES group. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of sirolimus‐eluting stent and paclitaxel‐eluting stent for long‐term cardiac adverse events in diabetic patients: The Korean multicenter angioplasty team (KOMATE) registry

Background: There is some controversy on long‐term cardiac outcomes between sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) in diabetes mellitus (DM). We compared cardiac adverse events after SES and PES implantation in patients with DM over a period of 3 year. Methods: A total of 634 patients with DM treated with SES (n = 428) or PES (n = 206) were consecutively enrolled in the KOMATE registry from 2003 to 2004. We assessed major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemia driven target vessel revascularization) and stent thrombosis (ST) according to the definitions set by the Academic Research Consortium. Results: Propensity score (PS) analysis was performed to adjust different baseline characteristics. The mean follow‐up duration was 38 ± 8 month (at least 36 month and up to 53 month). The 3‐year MACE rate did not show a significant difference between the two groups [52 (12.1%) in SES vs. 29 (14.1%) in PES, P = 0.496]. The definite and probable ST at 3 year were similar in both SES and PES [12 (2.8%) in SES vs. 7 (3.4%) in PES, P = 0.681]. There were no differences in hazard ratio for MACE and ST between two stents [MACE, crude: 0.844 (0.536–1.330) and adjusted for PS: 0.858 (0.530–1.389); ST, crude: 0.820 (0.323–2.083) and adjusted for PS: 0.960 (0.357–2.587)]. Conclusions: The present study demonstrated that long‐tem cardiac outcomes including ST were not significantly different between SES and PES in patients with DM. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Lack of long‐term clinical benefit of thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel‐eluting stents or bare‐metal stents: Post‐hoc analysis of the PASSION‐trial

Background : Although current clinical guidelines recommend the use of thrombus aspiration (TA) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), previous studies evaluating TA demonstrated contradictory results. The aim of this study was to evaluate long‐term clinical outcome after TA in adjunct to PPCI for acute ST‐segment myocardial infarction (STEMI), as compared with conventional treatment, with the use of paclitaxel‐eluting stents or bare‐metal stents. Methods : We analyzed data of the PASSION trial, in which 619 patients with STEMI were randomly assigned to a paclitaxel‐eluting stent or a bare‐metal stent. TA was performed in 311 patients (50.2%). Clinical endpoints at 2 years were compared between patients who received TA during PPCI with patients who underwent conventional PPCI. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), or target‐lesion revascularization (TLR). A propensity score model was made to account for baseline differences that could have affected the probability of performing TA. Results : Complete follow‐up was available for 598 patients (96.6%). The cumulative incidence of the combined outcome measure of cardiac death, recurrent MI, or TLR was 40 (13.0%) in the TA group and 41 (13.5%) in the conventional PPCI group (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.62–1.47; P = 0.84). Also after adjusting for propensity score, no significant difference in event rate was observed between both treatment groups. Conclusions : In this post‐hoc analysis of the PASSION trial, TA in adjunct to PPCI did not affect rates of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years follow‐up, as compared with conventional PPCI. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Clinical impact of sirolimus‐eluting stent in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: A meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials

Objectives: To evaluate outcome of patients undergoing sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) as compared to bare‐metal stent (BMS) implantation during primary angioplasty for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background: The role of SES in primary percutaneous coronary intervention setting is still debated. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, scientific session abstracts, and relevant Websites for studies in any language, from the inception of each database until October 2008. Only randomized clinical trials with a mean follow‐up period >6 months and sample size >100 patients were included. Primary endpoint for efficacy was target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) and primary endpoint for safety was stent thrombosis. Secondary endpoints were cardiac death and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI). Results: Six trials were included in the meta‐analysis, including 2,381 patients (1,192 randomized to SES and 1,189 to BMS). Up to 12‐month follow‐up, TVR was significantly lower in patients treated with SES as compared to patients treated with BMS (4.53% vs. 12.53%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24–0.46; P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of stent thrombosis (3.02% vs. 3.70%, OR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.52–1.27], P = 0.81), cardiac death (2.77% vs. 3.28%, OR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.52–1.35], P = 0.47), and recurrent MI (2.94% vs. 4.04%, OR = 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45–1.11], P = 0.13) between the two groups. Conclusion: SES significantly reduces TVR rates as compared to BMS in STEMI patients up to 1 year follow‐up. Further studies with larger population and longer follow‐up time are needed to confirm our findings. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Real World,Long‐Term Outcomes Comparison Between Paclitaxel‐Eluting and Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent Platforms

We compare real‐world, extended target vessel revascularization (TVR)‐free survival following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients receiving either sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) following an index drug‐eluting stent (DES) supported procedure. We analyzed 2,363 consecutive patients having first DES‐supported PCI at receiving PES (n = 1,012) or SES (n = 1,332) from April 2004 to July 2006. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics and in‐hospital outcomes were recorded during the time of the index procedure and extended clinical outcomes data were obtained thereafter. TVR and all cause mortality were identified during the study period. Adjusted Kaplan‐Meier and Cox's proportional hazard survival methods were performed. TVR‐free survival at 2.3 years was 91.3% for SES compared with 88.9% for PES (P = 0.06). Kaplan‐Meier survival curves did not significantly differ (adjusted hazard ratio ?1.39 [95% CI 0.99–1.97]) between the SES and PES patient cohorts. TVR was similar between the stent platforms at one (96.6% for SES [95% CI 95.3–97.6] vs. 95.7% for PES [95% CI 94.1–96.9]) and two (95.0%[95% CI 93.0–96.4] for SES vs. 93.7% for PES [95% CI 91.6–95.3]) years. Overall survival at 2 years was 96.2% for SES (95% CI 94.7–97.3) and 95.3% for PES (95% CI 93.7–96.5). SES and PES drug‐eluting stent platforms have good and similar extended outcomes in this real world registry of unselected patients having PCI. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:167‐175)     

Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound follow up of paclitaxel‐ and sirolimus‐eluting stent after poststent high‐pressure balloon dilation: From the poststent optimal stent expansion trial

Objectives : The aims of this study were to identify the efficacy of optimal stent expansion (OSE) according to the Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in Coronaries Study (MUSIC Study) criteria in drug‐eluting stent (DES) and compare paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) to sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES). Background : Although poststent high‐pressure balloon dilatation is proposed after bare metal stent implantation according to OSE, defined by the criteria of the MUSIC Study, very little data are available in DES. Methods : Two hundred fifty patients (M:F = 149:101; age, 61.5 ± 9.2 years) who underwent 9‐month follow‐up angiography in the Poststent Optimal Stent Expansion Trial (POET) were included in this study. We assessed angiographic in‐stent restenosis (ISR) and neointima volume (NV) using IVUS at 9 months. Results : At 9‐month follow up, there were no significant differences in ISR and NV index (NV/stent length, mm²) between patients with and without OSE. However, the rate of ISR and NV index were higher in PES [ISR: 18 (13.7%) and 4 (3.4%), P = 0.004; NV index: 1.02 ± 0.99 mm² and 0.21 ± 0.37, P < 0.001 in PES and SES]. Conclusions : OSE according to the MUSIC Study criteria was not related to ISR and NV in the DES era but PES had a significantly higher ISR rate and NV than SES after poststent high‐pressure balloon dilatation. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Impact of a prolonged delivery inflation time for optimal drug‐eluting stent expansion

Purpose: We examined the importance of prolonged inflation time for optimal sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) expansion. Methods: Eighty‐one de novo lesions deployed single SES or PES between April 2007 and March 2008 were divided into four groups; group 1: 21 SES deployed at 20 atm × 60 sec, group 2: 20 SES deployed with 2‐step inflation at 20 atm × 60 sec following 20 atm × 20 sec, group 3: 20 PES deployed same as group 1, group 4: 20 PES deployed same as group 2. The minimal lumen diameter (MLD) and stent expansion ratio (SER; stent cross‐ sectional area at lesion/balloon cross‐sectional area which was calculated according to the compliance chart at the same atmosphere as stent deployment) were compared between group 1 and group 2 in SES, between group 3 and group 4 in PES. Results: The MLD of post 60 sec was significantly higher than that of post 20sec (2.84 ± 0.28 mm in group 1, 2.76 ± 0.33 mm in group 2 vs. 2.54 ± 0.33 mm in group 2; P = 0.003, 0.045, respectively and 2.94 ± 0.28 mm in group 3, 3.00 ± 0.34 mm in group 4 vs. 2.69 ± 0.35 mm in group 4; P = 0.022, 0.007, respectively). The SER of post 60 sec was significantly higher than that of post 20 sec (79.3% ± 8.5% in group 1, 80.8% ± 7.8% in group 2 vs. 71.1% ± 10.2% in group 2; P = 0.014, 0.011, respectively and 81.1% ± 7.9% in group 3, 84.3% ± 9.9% in group 4 vs. 72.6% ± 10.5% in group 4, P = 0.011, 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: The prolonged delivery inflation for 60 sec may result in a more optimal stent expansion. It is therefore considered to be a useful method for deploying drug‐eluting stent. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of single‐ versus two‐stent techniques in treatment of unprotected left main coronary bifurcation disease

Background : This study sought to compare 3‐year outcomes of single‐ versus two‐stent techniques in patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease treated with drug‐eluting stents (DES). Methods and Results : A total of 392 patients with distal unprotected LMCA disease who underwent DES implantation with single‐ (n = 234) or two‐ (n = 158) stent techniques were evaluated. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). The two‐stent group was more likely to have extensive coronary artery stenosis. After adjustment with weighted Cox model using the inverse probability of treatment weighting, the 3‐year risk of death was similar in the single‐ and two‐stent groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–2.13, P = 0.62). However, the 3‐year risks of MI (HR, 0.38, 95% CI, 0.19–0.78, P = 0.008), TLR (HR, 0.16, 95% CI, 0.05–0.57, P = 0.005), and MACE (HR, 0.89, 95% CI, 0.22–0.67, P = 0.0007) were significantly lower in the single‐stent group. Conclusion : Compared with the two‐stent technique, the single‐stent technique showed more favorable long‐term clinical outcomes in patients with distal unprotected LMCA disease who received DES. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.