Five‐year clinical outcomes of sirolimus‐eluting versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents in high‐risk patients

Objectives and Background : First generation drug‐eluting stents have shown differential efficacy in high‐risk patient subsets at one year. It is unclear whether these differences endure over the medium‐ to long‐term. We compared the five‐year clinical efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) in a population of high‐risk patients. Methods : The patient cohorts of the ISAR‐DESIRE, ISAR‐DIABETES, and ISAR‐SMART‐3 randomized trials were followed up for five years and data were pooled. The primary efficacy endpoint of the analysis was the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) during a five‐year follow‐up period. The primary safety endpoint was the combination of death or myocardial infarction (MI) after five years. Results : A total of 810 patients (405 patients in the SES group and 405 patients in the PES group) was included. Over five years TLR was reduced by 39% with SES compared with PES stent (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44–0.85; P = 0.004). No difference was observed according to death or MI rates between the two groups (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.80–1.50; P = 0.57). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0.2% (n = 1) in the SES group and in 1.6% (n = 6) in the PES group (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02–1.34; P = 0.12). Conclusions : In high‐risk patient subsets the lower rate of 12‐month TLR observed with SES in comparison PES is maintained out to five years. In terms of safety, although there was no difference in the overall incidence of death or MI, there was a trend towards more frequent stent thromboses with PES. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.     

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.     

Difference of neointimal growth patterns in bifurcation lesions among four kinds of drug‐eluting stents

Aim: Neointimal proliferation of bifurcation lesions after implantation of drug‐eluting stents (DES) has not been well evaluated. Thus, we compared neointimal proliferation of bifurcation lesions among four DES using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Methods: 8‐month follow‐up OCT was performed in 68 bifurcation lesions treated by 15 sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and 17 paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) as first‐generation DES, and by 17 zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES) and 19 everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) as second‐generation DES. Cross‐sectional images of the bifurcation lesion using OCT were analyzed every 450 µm. All images were divided into three areas: inner wall of the bifurcation (IB), outer wall of the bifurcation (OB), and ostium of the side branch (SB). We compared the incidence of uncovered struts (IUS) among three areas and the averaged neointimal thickness (NIH) between IB and OB in each stent and also compared these OCT parameters among all DES. Results: There were no significant differences of IUS between IB and OB in second‐generation DES, while in first‐generation DES, IUS of IB and OB showed significant differences. The IUS of SES in both areas was significantly higher than in the other DES (all P < 0.001). PES had a significantly higher IUS in SB than the others (all P < 0.001). NIH of OB was significantly higher than that of IB in PES, ZES, and EES, but in SES the NIH was similar in the two areas. Conclusions: OCT revealed different neointimal growth patterns among SES, PES, ZES, and EES in bifurcation lesions. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Late target lesion revascularization after implantation of sirolimus‐eluting stent

Objectives : We evaluated the incidence, clinical presentation, and angiographic in‐stent restenosis (ISR) pattern of late target lesion revascularization (TLR) after sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) implantation. Background : Late TLR is an unusual finding beyond 6–9 months after bare‐metal stent implantation. However, late TLR after SES implantation has not been sufficiently evaluated. Methods : The study population consisted of 804 patients with 1,020 native lesions that were patent at 6‐month follow‐up angiogram after SES implantation. Results : Late TLR was performed in 18 patients with 18 lesions (1.8%) at 24.1 ± 2.6 months (range; 18–30 months) after SES implantation. Clinical presentation of late TLR patients was silent ischemia in eight patients and recurrent angina in 10 patients, but none had an acute coronary syndrome. Angiographic ISR pattern of late TLR lesions were focal ISR in 12 lesions (67%) and diffuse ISR in six lesions (33%). Serial quantitative coronary angiographic analysis of these lesions showed a minimal lumen diameter of 2.6 ± 0.5 mm immediately after SES implantation, 2.4 ± 0.4 mm at 6‐month follow‐up and 0.7 ± 0.6 mm at 24‐month follow‐up (ANOVA P < 0.001). By stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor of late TLR was stent length (P < 0.001, OR = 1.040, 95% CI = 1.019–1.061). Conclusions : Late TLR was performed in 1.8% of 1,020 native lesions that were patent at 6‐month follow‐up angiogram. Clinical presentations of late TLR was either silent ischemia or recurrent angina, but not acute coronary syndrome. Two‐thirds of late TLR lesions had a focal angiographic ISR pattern. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of sirolimus‐eluting stent,paclitaxel‐eluting stent,and bare metal stent in the treatment of long coronary lesions

Objective: This study compared the efficacy of the sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), the paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES), and the bare metal stent (BMS) for long coronary lesions. Background: The outcome of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in long coronary lesions remains unclear. Methods: The study involved 527 patients with de novo long coronary lesions (≥24 mm), which were treated with long (≥28 mm) SESs (223 lesions), PESs (194 lesions), or BMSs (201 lesions). Results: Lesions in the SES (36.0 ± 14.9 mm, P < 0.001) and PES (36.3 ± 14.5 mm, P < 0.001) groups were longer than those in the BMS group (32.0 ± 12.3 mm), meaning the two DES groups had longer stented segments than did the BMS group. Six‐month angiographic follow‐up showed the SES (9.3%, P < 0.001) and PES (21.3%, P < 0.001) groups had lower in‐segment restenosis rates than that of the BMS group (42.5%). The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 9 months was higher in the BMS group (26.6%) than that in the SES (13.0%, P < 0.001) and PES (15.7%, P < 0.001) groups. Posthoc analysis of the two DES groups showed that the in‐segment restenosis rate was lower for the SES than that for the PES group (P = 0.002), while the MACE rate was similar. Conclusions: The use of DESs for long coronary lesions appears to be safe and more effective than the use of BMSs in terms of restenosis and adverse clinical events. SES use was associated with lower late luminal loss and a lower angiographic restenosis rate compared with PES use. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

One‐Year Results of the CRISTAL Trial,a Randomized Comparison of Cypher Sirolimus‐Eluting Coronary Stents versus Balloon Angioplasty for Restenosis of Drug‐Eluting Stents

Objectives: We compared the efficacy of the Cypher Select? (Cordis Corporation, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) versus balloon angioplasty (BA) in in‐stent restenosis (ISR) of Taxus? or Taxus Liberté? paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES; Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) or Cypher/Cypher Select SES. Background: Optimal treatment strategies have not been identified for drug‐eluting stent (DES) ISR. Methods: Patients with a native coronary artery SES or PES ISR were randomized to SES or BA. In addition, a control group included BMS ISR treated with SES. Angiographic control was performed at 12 months. Results: 281 patients were enrolled. Significant differences favoring SES over BA were noted in immediate and net gain (1.39 ± 0.51 vs. 0.97 ± 0.54 mm, P < 0.0001 and 1.07 ± 0.69 vs. 0.49 ± 0.67 mm, P < 0.0001), 12‐month mean luminal diameter (MLD; 2.14 ± 0.62 vs. 1.71 ± 0.55 mm, P < 0.0001) and percent diameter stenosis (%DS; 21 ± 19.24 vs. 29.82 ± 18.47, P = 0.001). There was no significant difference at 12 months between SES and BA in the primary end‐point late lumen loss (LLL; 0.37 ± 0.57 vs.0.41 ± 0.63, P = 0.73) and in in‐stent binary restenosis (11.1% vs. 14%, P = 0.59). Target‐lesion revascularization (TLR) was numerically lower in patients treated with SES (5.9% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.097). There was no difference according to the initial DES. In contrast, significantly higher immediate and net gains and MLD were noted in the BMS control group treated by SES. Conclusions: In this angiographic randomized trial comparing SES and BA in SES or PES restenosis, 12 month MLD, immediate and net gain, and %DS favored SES whereas no difference was noted in LLL. Condensed Abstract Optimal treatment strategies have not been identified for sirolimus‐ (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) in‐stent restenosis (ISR). We randomized patients with a native coronary artery SES or PES ISR to SES or BA. In addition, a control group included BMS ISR treated with SES. There was no difference in the primary end‐point, late lumen loss (LLL) at 12 months between the SES and BA groups. However, follow‐up MLD and immediate and net gain favored SES. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:586–595)     

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.     

Kissing drug eluting balloons for in‐stent restenosis complicating bifurcations treated with drug‐eluting stents

The management of in‐stent restenosis (ISR) complicating bifurcation lesions is technically challenging and implant of further stents may not be feasible. The use of drug‐eluting balloons provides an attractive option for treatment of such lesions allowing a technically simple procedure without the need for further complex stenting. The SeQuent Please paclitaxel‐eluting balloon (B. Braun, Berlin, Germany) has been shown to be superior to a paclitaxel eluting stent or balloon angioplasty for ISR complicating a bare‐metal stent. However, there is no data on the efficacy of the SeQuent Please in ISR complicating drug‐eluting stents or bifurcation lesions. We report two cases where the SeQuent Please was used in this setting with angiographic success and freedom from target vessel failure and angina at 24 months. In both cases the Sheathless Eau Cath guide (Asahi Intecc, Japan) was employed to perform a kissing‐balloon dilatation with the SeQuent Please, so allowing treatment via radial access. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, 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.     

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.     

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.     

Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with drug-eluting stents: insights from the first phase of the prospective multicenter german drug-eluting stent registry

Background: Controversy exists about the impact of treating bifurcations on overall outcome of coronary interventions using drug‐eluting stents (DES). We sought to investigate 1‐year outcome of the treatment of bifurcation lesions using DES in a large “real‐world” cohort. Methods and Results: Among 5,126 patients enrolled in phase I of the multicenter German Drug‐Eluting Stent Registry, 814 (16%) were treated for a bifurcation lesion. Patients with bifurcations were compared to those without bifurcations in terms of baseline characteristics, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. Usage of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) was also evaluated. In total, 1,021 and 5,189 stents were implanted in the bifurcation (1.25 stents/patient) and nonbifurcation (1.2 stents/patient) group, respectively, but 64.5% of bifurcation lesions were treated with a single stent. More complex lesion and procedural characteristics were observed in the bifurcation group. However, there was no difference in 1‐year MACCE rates (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) between the bifurcation group and nonbifurcation group (8.1% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.85). Rates of TVR (11.2% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.75) and Academic Research Consoritum‐defined definite stent thrombosis (0.9% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.67) were also comparable. MACCE and TVR rates remained similar after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. MACCE and TVR in SES patients were 7.2% and 12.6% versus 8.7% and 10.2% in PES patients (P = 0.46 and P = 0.30, respectively). Conclusion: In this large multicenter registry, treatment of bifurcation lesions with DES appears effective and safe. The presence of bifurcations did not affect 1‐year outcomes after DES implantation. The outcomes for SES and PES were similar. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:344–352)     

The incidence and predictors of postprocedural incomplete stent apposition after angiographically successful drug‐eluting stent implantation

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and predictors of postprocedural incomplete stent apposition (ISA) after angiographically successful drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation. Background: The deployed stents are usually evaluated by angiography alone; however, there are possibilities of postprocedural ISA despite the angiographically successful implantation. Methods: A total of 339 lesions in which poststent intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was performed after successful DES implantation was included. Paclitaxel‐eluting stents were implanted in 237 lesions and sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) in 102 lesions. Clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics and IVUS findings for all cases were analyzed. Results: The overall incidence of ISA was 13.9% (47/339). By multivariate analysis, male gender (OR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.09–5.11), deployment of SES (OR: 2.90, 95% CI: 1.49–5.67), the presence of intracoronary thrombus (OR: 7.47, 95% CI: 1.67–33.47), and non‐ST elevation myocardial infarction (OR: 2.73, 95% CI: 1.09–6.83) were independent predictors for postprocedural ISA after angiographically successful DES implantation. Conclusions: The incidence of postprocedural ISA after angiographically successful implantation of DES was not infrequent. A DES deployment strategy incorporating IVUS guidance might be helpful to reduce the incidence of postprocedural ISA. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Impact of renal insufficiency on safety and efficacy of drug‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents at 6 years

Background : There is few information on the long‐term efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in all‐comer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)—patients complicated by renal insufficiency (RI). Objective : Our aim was to assess the 6‐year clinical outcome of PCI‐patients with RI treated exclusively with BMS, SES, or PES in our academic hospital. Methods: A total of 1382 patients, included in three cohorts of consecutive PCI‐patients (BMS = 392; SES = 498; PES = 492), were categorized by creatinine clearance calculated by the Cockroft–Gault formula (normal kidney function ≥ 90; mild RI = 60–89; moderate RI < 60) and systematically followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : Mortality rates were significantly higher for patients with moderate RI compared to mild RI and normal kidney function at 6 years (Kaplan–Meier estimate: moderate RI (34%) vs. mild RI (12%), P < 0.001; moderate RI (34%) vs. normal kidney function (8%), P < 0.001). After multivariate Cox‐regression analysis, SES and PES decreased the occurrence of target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) and MACE at 6 years in patients with a normal creatinine clearance compared to BMS [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28–0.84; aHR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.97, respectively] with no significant effect on mortality. Safety‐ and efficacy end points were comparable for the three stent types in patients with mild‐ and moderate renal function. Conclusion : Patients with a normal creatinine clearance had significant improvement in TVR and MACE rates after SES‐ or PES implantation compared to BMS at 6 years. However, there was no superiority of both drug‐eluting stents over BMS in safety and efficacy end points for patients with impaired renal function. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Impact of three or more sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent stenting with > or =3 sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) when compared with those treated with > or =3 paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for single coronary lesions is proven to be effective and durable. METHODS: A total of 126 patients who received DES were identified, of which 66 patients received > or =3 SES (SES group) and 60 patients received > or =3 PES (PES group). RESULTS: The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were compatible between the two study groups. During the index hospitalization, all clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. There were no deaths or Q-wave myocardial infarctions (MIs) in either group. At 30 days' and 6 months' follow-up, all clinical outcomes, including death, Q-wave MI, non-Q-wave MI, target lesion revascularization, target vascular revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events, were compatible between both groups. There were 2 patients (3.0%) with subacute thrombosis in the SES group and 1 patient (1.7%) in the PES group, but there was no statistical significance. There was no late thrombosis from either group. In addition, patients in the SES group had similar event-free survival rates as compared with those in the PES group (P = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who require > or =3 DES implantations experienced increased adverse clinical events as compared with historical single stent implantation. However, there were no differences in safety and efficacy among the patients treated with SES as compared with those treated with PES.