Sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in routine clinical use: a nonrandomized comparison

Conflicting patient outcomes have been reported after the use of sirolimus-eluting stents or bare-metal stents. In this nonrandomized study, we examine the outcomes after placement of sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in an unselected population of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization.We used THIRD-base, a longitudinal data registry of patients who underwent revascularization at our institution, to compare demographics and outcomes in patients treated with a sirolimus-eluting or bare-metal stent from January 2001 through June 2006. Outcome measures included major acute coronary and cerebral events at 30 days, target-vessel failure at 9 months and at 3 years, and stent thrombosis. Target-vessel failure was defined as the composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction in the treated vessel distribution, and target-vessel revascularization. Logistic regression and Cox proportional regression models were used to determine the predictors of outcome.Of the 6,425 patients analyzed, 2,581 patients (40.2%) received only sirolimus-eluting stents, and 3,844 patients (59.8%) received only bare-metal stents. Early major acute coronary and cerebral events and stent thrombosis at 30 days and 9 months were similar in both groups. Target-vessel failure was less frequent in sirolimus-eluting stent patients than in bare-metal stent patients at 9 months (4.84% vs 11.81%, P < 0.0001) and at 3 years (29% vs 32%, P < 0.0001).Use of sirolimus-eluting stents improved target-vessel failure survival at 9 months and at 3 years. Late adverse events were determined by known risk factors for atherosclerosis, not by stent type.     

Initial and long-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents for calcified lesions compared with bare-metal stents

The aim of this study was to compare the initial and long-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with calcified lesions without performing rotational atherectomy. The subjects were 79 consecutive lesions (38 in the SES group and 41 in the BMS group) which were confirmed to have superficially calcified lesions by intravascular ultrasound. In all lesions, the stent was implanted after predilatation with a balloon. The patient characteristics were not different between the 2 groups. All procedures were successfully performed in both groups. Vessel area was significantly smaller in the SES group than in the BMS group (11.01 +/- 3.88 mm(2) versus 13.08 +/- 3.49 mm(2), P < 0.005), as was the lumen area (5.41 +/- 2.31mm(2) versus 6.48 +/- 2.04 mm(2), P < 0.005). Minimum stent area was significantly smaller in the SES group than in the BMS group (5.61 +/- 1.54 mm(2) versus 6.69 +/- 1.74 mm(2), P < 0.01). In cases in whom angiographic follow-ups were performed, the late loss was significantly smaller in the SES group than in the BMS group (0.19 +/- 0.49 mm versus 0.76 +/- 0.48 mm, P < 0.001). The restenosis rate was significantly lower in the SES group than in the BMS group (8.8% versus 33.3%, P < 0.05) and the TLR rate tended to be lower in the SES group (7.9% versus 19.5%). Stent thrombosis was not observed in either group. The results suggest that SES are more effective than BMS and can be used safely when treating calcified lesions if predilatation with a balloon is possible.     

Clinical outcomes of percutaneous interventions in saphenous vein grafts using drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents: a comprehensive meta-analysisof all randomized clinical trials

Background:

Clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) remain poor despite the use of drug‐eluting stents (DES). There is a disparity in clinical outcomes in SVG PCI based on various registries, and randomized clinical data remain scant. We conducted a meta‐analysis of all existing randomized controlled trials (RCTS) comparing bare‐metal stents (BMS) and DES in SVGPCIs.

Hypothesis:

PCI in patients with SVG disease using DES may reduce need for repeat revascularization without an excess mortality when compared to BMS.

Methods:

An aggregate data meta‐analysis of clinical outcomes in RCTs comparing PCI with DES vs BMS for SVGs reporting at least 12 months of follow‐up was performed. A literature search between Janurary 1, 2003 and September 30, 2011 identified 4 RCTs (812 patients; DES = 416, BMS = 396). Summary odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random‐effects model. The primary endpoint was all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). These outcomes were assessed in a cumulative fashion at 30 days, 18 months, and 36 months.

Results:

There were no intergroup differences in baseline clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. At a median follow‐up of 25 months, patients in the DES and BMS group had similar rates of death (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 0.45–5.92), MI (OR; 0.83, 95% CI: 0.27‐2.60), and MACE (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.25–1.32). Patients treated with DES had lower rates of repeat revascularization (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22–0.75).

Conclusions:

In this comprehensive meta‐analysis of all RCTs comparing clinical outcomes of PCI using DES vs BMS in patients with SVG disease, use of DES was associated with a reduction in rate of repeat revascularization and no difference in rates of all‐cause death and MI. Clin. Cardiol. 2012 DOI: 10.1002/clc.21984 Dr. Virani is supported by a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D) Career Development Award (CDA‐09‐028), and has research support from Merck and National Football League Charities (all grants to the institution and not individual). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors have no other funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of in-stent restenosis: immediate and late results

We analyzed the clinical, angiographic, and late intravascular ultrasonographic findings from 140 patients whose in-stent restenosis was treated with sirolimus-eluting stents. In-stent restenosis remains the main limitation to percutaneous coronary revascularization and has a high recurrence rate after bare stent implantation. From May 2002 through July 2003, we studied 140 patients with clinical restenosis after bare-stent treatment. In 107 patients, in-stent restenosis occurred de novo; in 28 patients, this was the 2nd restenosis; and in another 5, it was the 3rd occurrence. A sirolimus-eluting stent was implanted directly after angiographic evaluation of the in-stent restenosis in 79 patients and after pre-dilation in 61 patients. All patients were given the following antithrombotic regimen: low-molecular-weight heparin, ticlopidine, and aspirin for 1 month, followed by clopidogrel and aspirin for 1 year. Primary success was achieved in 137 patients. Three patients had a non-Q wave myocardial infarction. At the 1-month evaluation, 2 patients had died: 1 due to subacute stent thrombosis and another due to acute mesenteric ischemia. After a mean follow-up of 16 +/- 4 months, the major adverse cardiac events were acute myocardial infarction due to late stent thrombosis in 2 patients and the need for target lesion revascularization in 15 patients. Late angiographic evaluation was performed in 97 patients (69%), 16 of whom had new restenosis: 14 of the restenoses were intrastent, and 2 were at the edges of the stent. Our results suggest that sirolimus-eluting stents are effective in the prevention of in-stent restenosis and, therefore, may become the leading treatment alternative for patients with in-stent restenosis.     

Short- and long-term benefits of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents even in treatment for large coronary arteries

Although drug-eluting stents (DES) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have dramatically reduced the incidence of in-stent restenosis, their deployment for large-size coronary lesions is still controversial because of problems such as late in-stent thrombosis and late catch-up in DES. We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome beyond 2 years of bare metal stents (BMS) as compared with DES in large vessels. Consecutive 228 patients who underwent PCI with large-size stents (>3.5 mm in diameter) in our hospital were enrolled in this study. The end points of this study are target lesion revascularization (TLR) and occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) for subject patients. We analyzed 183 patients (152 men, mean age 65.8 ± 10.5 years) whose outcome could be followed up for at least 2 years. At the first 8-month follow-up, clinically driven TLR rate was significantly higher in patients who received BMS than those who received DES (17.2 vs. 2.2 %, p < 0.05), although the rate of TLR was not different between the 2 groups beyond 8 months. Thus, overall rate of TLR was higher in BMS than in DES (22.7 vs. 5.4 %, p < 0.05). Under these conditions, the higher rate of TLR for BMS was observed in simple as well as complex lesions with or without diabetes, although there were no significant differences in MACE between BMS and DES. Multivariate analysis showed that BMS was an only independent factor of TLR at the 8 month follow-up period [p = 0.004, odds ratio 9.58, 95 % confidence interval (2.10–43.8)]. These results demonstrate that the rate of in-stent restenosis in large-size coronary lesions was transiently higher in the first 8 months for patients implanted with BMS compared with DES in which no in-stent thrombosis and TLR beyond 2 years were observed. We suggest using the DES even in large-size coronary lesions in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents remain superior to bare-metal stents at two years: medium-term results from the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the medium-term (two year) outcome of the unrestricted utilization of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in an all-comer population. BACKGROUND: Despite the implantation of SES in over a million patients to date, limited data exist on long-term outcomes. METHODS: Sirolimus-eluting stents were used as the default strategy as part of the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry. A total of 508 consecutive patients with de novo lesions exclusively treated with SES were compared with 450 patients who received bare stents in the immediately preceding period (pre-SES group). RESULTS: Patients in the SES group more frequently had multivessel disease, more type C lesions, received more stents, and had more bifurcation stenting. At two years, the cumulative rate of major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) was 15.4% in the SES group and 22.0% in the pre-SES group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50 to 0.91; p = 0.01). The two-year risk of target vessel revascularization in the SES group and in the pre-SES group was 8.2% and 14.8%, respectively (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.79; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In an unrestricted population, the beneficial effects of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation extend out to two years compared with bare-metal stents, driven by a reduction in re-intervention rates. These findings should be confirmed by the results of the large randomized trials.     

Sirolimus-eluting versus bare stents for bailout after suboptimal infrapopliteal angioplasty for critical limb ischemia: 6-month angiographic results from a nonrandomized prospective single-center study.

PURPOSE: To report the 6-month angiographic results from a prospective single-center study investigating the efficacy and outcome of sirolimus-eluting stents used for bailout after infrapopliteal revascularization of patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). METHODS: Twenty-nine patients (21 men; mean age 68.7 years) underwent infrapopliteal revascularization with bare metal stents (group B) implanted for bailout in 65 lesions (38 stenoses and 27 occlusions) in 40 infrapopliteal arteries. Another 29 patients (21 men; mean age 68.8 years) underwent infrapopliteal bailout stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents (group S) in 66 lesions (46 stenoses and 20 occlusions) in 41 vessels. Preliminary 6-month angiographic and clinical results were analyzed. RESULTS: Hyperlipidemia and symptomatic cardiac and carotid diseases were more pronounced in group S (p<0.05). Technical success was 96.6% (28/29 limbs) in group B versus 100.0% in group S (p=0.16). Six-month primary patency was 68.1% in group B versus 92.0% in group S (p<0.002). Binary in-stent and in-segment restenosis rates were 55.3% and 66.0%, respectively, in patients with bare stents versus 4.0% and 32.0%, respectively, in patients treated with the sirolimus-eluting stents (both p<0.001). The target lesion re-intervention rate at 6 months was 17.0% in group B versus 4.0% in group S (p=0.02). Limb salvage was 100% in both groups. Six-month mortality and minor amputation rates were 6.9% and 17.2%, respectively, in group B versus 10.3% and 3.4%, respectively, in group S (p=0.32 and p=0.04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stents seem to restrict neointimal hyperplasia in the infrapopliteal vascular bed.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents: a review of experimental and clinical findings

Sirolimus (rapamycin), a macrolide antibiotic with known potent immunosuppressive properties, acts in the first phase (G1) of the cell cycle, blocking its further progression to the phase of DNA synthesis (S). In experimental models, rapamycin is effective in inhibiting smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration after vessel wall injury with balloon angioplasty. These results lead to the clinical application of sirolimus-eluting stents in 45 patients in Sao Paulo and Rotterdam (FIM Registry) and 238 patients in a randomized, European multicenter trial (RAVEL). These trials showed, by angiography and intravascular ultrasound, almost complete abolition of in-stent late hyperplasia up to one year after the procedure. In this review, we describe the experimental and clinical results of sirolimus-eluting stents including our experience of 26 stents implanted in 17 patients. In elective de novo lesions has shown remarkably clear lumens at follow-up angiography and intravascular ultrasound within the stented segments were observed with no lesion progression at the stent margins or thrombosis after a 2 month regimen of aspirin, and ticlopodine or clopidogrel. New large-scale ongoing clinical trials will investigate the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents in lesions that are traditionally associated with high restenosis rates after stent implantation, such as long lesions, bifurcations and instent restenosis.     

Long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting compared to bare-metal stents for the treatment of transplant coronary artery disease

Objective : We aimed to compare the long‐term clinical outcomes of first‐vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) for the treatment of transplant coronary artery disease (TCAD). Background : TCAD is the leading cause of late death in orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) recipients. PCI is associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with non‐OHT patients. Our institution previously reported superior angiographic outcomes with DES compared with BMS in OHT patients. However, long‐term clinical outcomes comparing PCI with DES versus BMS are lacking. Methods : The data on 105 OHT recipients who underwent first‐vessel PCI with DES (n = 58) or BMS (n = 47) at UCLA Medical Center between 1995 and 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. Results : Five‐year clinical outcomes were not significantly different with DES and BMS in terms of the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR) [(40.8 ± 7.2)% vs. (59.6 ± 7.2)%, log‐rank P = 0.33], death [(31.8 ± 7.8)% vs. (40.4 ± 7.2)%, log‐rank P = 0.46], MI [(12.2 ± 6.2)% vs. (11.3 ± 5.4)%, log rank P = 0.98], TVR [(25.5 ± 6.9)% vs. (26.5 ± 7.3)%, log rank P = 0.76], and time to repeat OHT [(2.27 ± 1.79) vs. (3.22 ± 3.34), P = 0.98]. Conclusions : At long‐term follow‐up, PCI with DES and BMS provided similar clinical outcomes in OHT. Long‐term mortality remains high in OHT recipients after PCI with either DES or BMS. Randomized clinical trials are required to determine the optimal treatment strategy for OHT recipients with TCAD. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Sirolimus-eluting versus bare stents after suboptimal infrapopliteal angioplasty for critical limb ischemia: enduring 1-year angiographic and clinical benefit.

PURPOSE: To report the 1-year angiographic and clinical outcome from a prospective single-center study investigating the infrapopliteal application of sirolimus-eluting versus bare metal stents in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) who underwent below-the-knee endovascular revascularization. METHODS: Stenting was performed as a bailout procedure for suboptimal angioplasty results (flow-limiting dissection, elastic recoil, or postangioplasty residual stenosis >30%). In the first 29 patients, infrapopliteal stenting was performed with bare metal stents (group B) and with sirolimus-eluting stents in the other 29 patients (group S). RESULTS: Below-the-knee angioplasty and stenting involved 65 lesions in 40 infrapopliteal arteries of 29 limbs in group B and 66 lesions in 41 infrapopliteal arteries of 29 limbs in group S. Baseline comorbidities (hyperlipidemia and symptomatic cardiac and carotid disease) were more pronounced in group S (p<0.05). At 6 months, sirolimus-eluting stents demonstrated significantly higher primary patency (OR 5.625, 95% CI 1.711 to 18.493, p = 0.004) and decreased in-stent binary restenosis (OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.021 to 0.017, p<0.001) and in-segment binary restenosis (OR 0.229, 95% CI 0.099 to 0.533, p = 0.001). After 1 year, sirolimus-eluting stents were steadily associated with increased primary patency (OR 10.401, 95% CI 3.425 to 31.589, p<0.001) and significantly less in-stent (OR 0.156, 95% CI 0.060 to 0.407, p<0.001) and in-segment (OR 0.089, 95% CI 0.023 to 0.349, p = 0.001) binary restenosis. In addition, sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with significantly fewer cumulative target lesion reinterventions at 6 months (OR 0.057, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.426, p = 0.005) and 1 year (OR 0.238, 95% CI 0.067 to 0.841, p = 0.026). No significant differences between groups B and S were noted at 1 year with respect to mortality (10.3% versus 13.8%, respectively), minor amputation (17.2% versus 10.3%), or limb salvage (100% versus 96%). CONCLUSION: The application of sirolimus-eluting stents reduces the restenosis rate in the infrapopliteal arteries and the rate of repeat endovascular procedures the first year after treatment.     

Drug-eluting stents compared with thin-strut bare stents for the reduction of restenosis: a prospective, randomized trial.

AIM: Drug-eluting stents have considerably reduced restenosis. Their relative merits have been assessed on the basis of comparisons made with control bare stents with thick struts. However, increased strut thickness negatively affects restenosis. No direct comparisons between drug-eluting stents and bare stents with thin struts have been performed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher) as compared with that of bare stents with thin struts (BeStent 2). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 500 patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to receive a Cypher stent or BeStent. The primary endpoint was angiographic restenosis defined as a stenosis diameter > or = 50% at 6-month angiographic follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) during the year following the procedure. Follow-up angiography was performed in 81.8% of the patients. Patients treated with Cypher stents had a lower angiographic restenosis rate [8.3 vs. 25.5%, relative risk, 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.56), P<0.001] and a lower incidence of TVR [7.2 vs. 18.8%, relative risk, 0.38 (0.22-0.66), P<0.001]. For smaller vessels (< 2.8 mm), the angiographic restenosis rates were 7.0% with the Cypher stent and 34.2% with the BeStent (P<0.001). For larger vessels (> or = 2.8 mm), angiographic restenosis rates were 10.0% with the Cypher stent and 13.1% with the BeStent (P=0.52). CONCLUSION: The drug-eluting stent, Cypher, is associated with a significantly lower risk of restenosis compared with the bare thin-strut BeStent. The advantage of the Cypher stent is vastly reduced in large vessels.     

Reimbursement for smoking cessation treatment may double the abstinence rate: results of a randomized trial

AIMS: Few smokers who try to quit smoking use smoking cessation treatment (SCT), and cost could be one factor. To increase the number of successful quitters, we assessed whether financial reimbursement for SCT would encourage the use of SCT and would as a result increase the 6-month point abstinence rate. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited smokers aged over 18 years from a random sample of Dutch inhabitants insured by one health insurance company. INTERVENTION AND DESIGN: The smokers were assigned randomly to the intervention group (n = 632) or control group (n = 634). Respondents in the intervention group received an offer of reimbursement for nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and behavioural counselling. No reimbursement was offered to the control group. To preclude a change of behaviour due to disappointment in the control group, we used a randomized consent design. FINDINGS: During the reimbursement period, 10.8% smokers in the intervention group reported having used SCT compared with 4.1% in the control group (OR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.8-4.7). In the intervention group, 23.4% smokers tried to stop compared with 20.8% in the control group (OR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-2.4). After 6 months, the biochemically validated 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate was 5.5% in the intervention group and 2.8% in the control group (OR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.1). CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement for SCT seems efficacious in increasing the use of SCT and may double the number of successful quitters.