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.     

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.     

The short‐ and long‐term outcomes of percutaneous intervention with drug‐eluting stent vs bare‐metal stent in saphenous vein graft disease: An updated meta‐analysis of all randomized clinical trials

The use of drug‐eluting stents (DES) vs bare‐metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remains controversial. We conducted a meta‐analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing the outcomes of DES with BMS in SVG percutaneous coronary interventions. A search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed for all randomized clinical trials. We evaluated the short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes of the following: all‐cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), definite/probable stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target‐vessel revascularization (TVR). From a total of 1582 patients in 6 randomized clinical trials, 797 had DES and 785 had BMS. Patients with DES had lower short‐term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35–0.91, P = 0.02; OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.19–0.99, P = 0.05; and OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22–0.95, P = 0.04, respectively). However, there were no different outcomes for all‐cause mortality (P = 0.63) or stent thrombosis (P = 0.21). With long‐term follow‐up, there were no significant reductions of MACE (P = 0.20), TLR (P = 0.57), TVR (P = 0.07), all‐cause mortality (P = 0.29), and stent thrombosis (P = 0.76). The use of DES in SVG lesions was associated with lower short‐term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS. However, there were no significant differences with long‐term follow‐up.     

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.     

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)     

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.     

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.     

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 Sirolimus‐ and Paclitaxel‐Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Meta‐analysis of Randomized Trials

Background

It has been reported that sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (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 might be differences between these two drug‐eluting stents in terms of efficacy and safety in the setting of acute ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Hypothesis

The aim of the present study was to compare SES with PES in patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

The published research was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from January 2001 to February 2010. Internet‐based sources of information on the results of clinical trials in cardiology were also searched.

Results

A total of 4 randomized trials were included in the present meta‐analysis, involving 1105 patients (550 in the SES group, 555 in the PES group). SES were significantly more effective in the reduction of angiographic binary (≥50%) restenosis (4.0% vs 9.6%, odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.74, P = 0.004) compared to PES. The differences between SES and PES were not statistically significant with respect to target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction.

Conclusions

SES are superior to PES in reducing the incidence of restenosis in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI, with nonsignificant differences in terms of TVR, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

不同药物洗脱支架在冠状动脉弥漫性长病变中的2年随访结果比较

目的评价在冠状动脉弥漫性长病变中使用重叠西罗莫司（雷帕霉素）洗脱支架（SES）与重叠紫杉醇洗脱支架（PES）的疗效及安全性。方法研究入选冠状动脉弥漫性长病变患者197例,分别接受重叠SES（CypherTM,75例,110处病变）或PES（TaxusTM,122例,177处病变）。比较两组随访6个月时造影及随访2年时的临床结果。结果随访6个月时造影结果表明,SES组最小管腔直径显著高于PES组（P=0.013）;晚期管腔丢失、再狭窄百分比和二元再狭窄率显著低于PES组（P均〈0.05）。2年临床随访结果显示,SES组总死亡率、靶病变血运重建、靶血管血运重建及主要不良心脏事件的发生率显著低于PES组（P均〈0.05）。多因素回归分析显示,相较于PES,SES是随访2年时总死亡（OR=0.20,95%CI：0.05~0.83,P=0.027）、靶病变重建（OR=0.26,95%CI：0.10~0.73,P=0.010）和主要不良心脏事件（OR=0.38,95%CI：0.18~0.82,P=0.014）的独立保护性预测因素。结论在冠状动脉弥漫性长病变治疗中,相较于重叠使用PES,重叠SES显著改善了6个月时的造影随访结果,并且该结果能转化成为更佳的2年临床随访结果。     

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.     

Comparison between sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of older patients affected by coronary artery disease: results from a single-center allcomers registry

The treatment of elderly patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is challenging because this population is complex and greatly expanding. Drug-eluting stents (DES) generally improve the outcome in high-risk cases. We evaluated the clinical impact of different first-generation DES, i.e., sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), in this context. A prospective, nonrandomized, single-center, allcomers registry consecutively enrolling all patients aged ≥75 years eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES was carried out. Only one type of DES was implanted per protocol for each patient. Two groups were identified according to the type of implanted stent, i.e., SES and PES. The primary end point encompassed major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary end point encompassed the rate of definite/probable stent thrombosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). From June 2004 to May 2008, 151 patients were enrolled. Among them, 112 (74.2%) received SES and 39 (25.8%) received PES. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar, while few angiographic features (ostial location, stent diameter, proximal reference vessel diameter) showed minor differences. At the median follow-up of 22.6 months, primary and secondary end points did not significantly differ in terms of MACE (SES 12.5% vs PES 20.5%, P = 0.3), death (SES 5.4% vs PES 7.7%, P = 0.7), myocardial infarction (SES 4.5% vs PES 10.3%, P = 0.2), TLR (SES 2.7% vs PES 2.6%, P = 1.0), stent thrombosis (SES 1.8% vs PES 5.1%, P = 0.3), and TVR (SES 1.8% vs PES 0%, P = 0.6). In this real-world population of elderly patients treated by DES–PCI for CAD, the overall efficacy and safety have been excellent in both DES, and the choice between SES and PES did not influence the clinical outcome.     

Long‐term risk of clinical events from stenting side branches of coronary bifurcation lesions with drug‐eluting and bare‐metal stents: An observational meta‐analysis

Objectives : To compare the long‐term risks of coronary bifurcation lesions treated with side‐branch stenting using drug‐eluting versus bare‐metal stents. Background : Side‐branch stenting is an off‐label practice, but when needed, the incidence of late adverse events may differ between drug‐eluting and bare‐metal stents. Methods : We systematically searched PubMed, and the National Institutes of Health and Cochrane Registries for studies of coronary bifurcation stenting reporting clinical outcomes over at least 5 months. Data were extracted and cross checked independently by two investigators for inclusion in an observational meta‐analysis. Clinical outcomes included major adverse clinical events (MACE), death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and definite stent thrombosis. We used random‐effects models and meta‐regression in 6,825 subjects from 42 studies. Results : Most (79%) of the heterogeneity in MACE between treatment groups was explained by differences in stent type, side‐branch stenting, and length of follow‐up. Compared with drug‐eluting stents without side‐branch stenting, drug‐eluting stents with side‐branch stenting had a 3% higher incidence of myocardial infarction [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.3%, 5%, P < 0.05], but no significant increase in MACE, death, TVR, or stent thrombosis. Bare‐metal stenting without side‐branch stenting had 10% (95% CI = 3%, 16%, P < 0.01) higher MACE, and 10% (95% CI = 4%, 17%, P < 0.01) higher TVR, whereas bare‐metal side‐branch stenting had 31% (95% CI = 23%, 39%, P < 0.001) higher MACE, and 19% (95% CI = 10%, 28%, P < 0.001) higher TVR. Conclusions : Side‐branch stenting has a much smaller impact on long‐term MACE with drug‐eluting stents compared with bare‐metal stents. Although this study does not support routine side‐branch stenting, when side‐branch stenting is required, drug‐eluting stents are associated with less adverse outcomes.© 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparable clinical outcomes with paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents in unrestricted contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in a contemporaneous cohort of real-world patients. BACKGROUND: A number of randomized comparisons of PES and SES have shown unequivocal advantages for SES in angiographic end points such as late loss. However, the data on clinical outcomes are less consistent. METHODS: All consecutive patients successfully treated with only SES or PES in de novo native vessel lesions between March 2003 and March 2005 were analyzed. Our end points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). We also analyzed late loss and angiographic restenosis. RESULTS: There were 609 patients (1,064 lesions) treated with PES and 674 patients (1,205 lesions) treated with SES. Diabetes mellitus was present in 26.8% of patients and multivessel disease in 75% of patients. Bifurcations made up 16.3% of lesions, chronic occlusions 9.5%, left main 4.8%, and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology type B2/C 75.4%. Despite a higher late loss in the PES group (p = 0.0001), there were no differences in angiographic restenosis (PES 18% vs. SES 17.8%, p = 0.95), TLR (PES 11.9% vs. SES 11%, p = 0.47), or MACE (PES 21.3% vs. SES 21.1%, p = 0.95). The relative risk of MACE for the PES group was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 1.33). Multivariable analysis confirmed the lack of association of stent type with MACE (odds ratio 1.03 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.38], p = 0.83) and TLR (odds ratio 1.08 [95% CI 0.81 to 1.44], p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In this complex cohort, both stent platforms demonstrated similar clinical outcomes despite different late loss.     

Long-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents in unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions

Background:

The treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) bifurcation lesions remains challenging.

Hypothesis:

We hypothesized that the type of drug‐eluting stent would correlate with clinical outcomes for the treatment of uLMCA bifurcation lesions.

Methods:

One hundred fifteen patients who underwent stent implantation using a provisional T‐stenting technique with sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) for uLMCA bifurcation lesions were enrolled. A major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.

Results:

Ninety‐four patients were treated with SES and 21 patients with PES. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Angiographic follow‐up was performed in 99 (86%) patients. Late loss in the LMCA to the left anterior descending coronary artery was significantly lower in the SES group than in the PES group (0.28 ± 0.54 mm vs 1.03 ± 0.45 mm, P<0.001). One case of stent thrombosis occurred in the SES group. During follow‐up with a median of 712 days, the SES group had a lower MACE compared with the PES group (10.6% vs 28.6%, P = 0.032). Cox proportional hazards models including age, sex, diabetes, acute coronary syndrome, true bifurcation, stenting strategy, and type of drug‐eluting stent used (SES vs PES) demonstrated that stent type was the only predictor of MACE (hazard ratio of PES vs SES: 3.88, 95% confidence interval: 1.29–11.67, P = 0.016).

Conclusions:

According to the results of the present study, SES may be associated with more favorable outcomes than PES for stenting of uLMCA bifurcation, which should be further studied by larger trials. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

Clinical Outcomes of Biodegradable Polymer Drug‐Eluting Stents for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Meta‐analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Biodegradable polymer drug‐eluting stents (DES) are innovative concepts in the era of percutaneous coronary intervention. We systematically reviewed the latest randomized evidence on the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer DES as compared to durable polymer DES. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane database were searched in August 2013 for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer DES. Clinical outcomes of interest were mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis. A total of 20 RCTs randomizing 20 021 participants were included, of whom 11 045 were allocated to biodegradable polymer DES and 8976 to durable polymer DES. Treatment of biodegradable polymer DES was not associated with a significant reduction of any of the clinical outcomes (all‐cause mortality, odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80 to 1.10, P = 0.42; cardiovascular mortality, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.19, P = 0.74; MI, OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.26, P = 0.41; TLR, OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.08, P = 0.20; TVR, OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.28, P = 0.67; definite/probable stent thrombosis, OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.07, P = 0.14). Current randomized data indicate that clinical efficacy and safety profiles of biodegradable polymer DES are comparable to those of durable polymer DES. Findings from large‐scale studies with rigorous methodology and long follow‐up duration are needed.     

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.     

Comparative clinical outcomes of paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents: results from a large prospective multicenter registry--STENT Group.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the 9-month clinical outcomes of patients treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for coronary artery stenosis. BACKGROUND: The STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) registry is the first multicenter registry in the U.S. to collect long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents from "real-world" practice. METHODS: Data on all percutaneous coronary interventions in 8 U.S. hospital centers were collected in the STENT registry between 2003 and 2005. In this prospective, nonrandomized, observational study, the choice of procedures was at the physicians' discretion. Patients who only received a PES (n = 4,671) or SES (n = 4,555) and completed 9-month follow-up (93.8% of eligible) were included for analysis. Primary end points were death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 9 months. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (any of the 3 primary end points) and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: At 9 months, death, MI, and TVR occurred in 2.2%, 2.0%, and 4.1%, respectively, of the PES group and 2.5%, 2.2%, and 4.3%, respectively, of the SES group (p = NS); MACE occurred in 7.5% of the PES group and 8.0% of the SES group (p = 0.37). After adjustments for group differences in baseline characteristics, TVR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 1.32; p = 0.26) and MACE (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; p = 0.56) were similar for PES and SES. Stent thrombosis at 9 months occurred in 0.7% of both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that clinical restenosis and MACE events after PES and SES procedures in "real-world" patients are infrequent and similar at 9 months.     

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.     

Comparing long‐term outcomes between drug‐eluting and bare‐metal stents in the treatment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy

Background: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is the leading cause of death after the first year following heart transplantation. We compared restenosis rates, mortality, and other major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between transplant recipients treated with DES and BMS for CAV. Methods: All patients from our heart transplant registry undergoing PCI with stenting for CAV were identified. Procedural data, baseline clinical characteristics, yearly coronary angiography, cardiac events and death were prospectively collected. Primary outcome was in‐stent restenosis (ISR). Secondary outcomes were in‐segment restenosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), all‐cause mortality and combined MACE. Results: 36 lesions in 25 patients treated with DES were compared with 31 BMS‐treated lesions in 19 patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. 12‐month incidence of ISR was 0% with DES vs. 12.9% with BMS, P = 0.03. Over mean (±standard error) follow‐up of 51.1 ± 7.5 months this difference was significant for vessels ≤3 mm in diameter, hazard ratio (HR) DES vs. BMS 0.37 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.95) P = 0.037; but not for vessels >3 mm P = 0.45. However, there was no difference in overall longterm patency because of similar rates of in‐segment restenosis between DES and BMS, HR 1.13 (95% CI 0.43 to 2.97) P = 0.81. Also, the rates of TVR, death from any cause and combined MACE were similar; log rank P 0.88, 0.67, and 0.85, respectively. Conclusion: This study suggests that after PCI for cardiac allograft vasculopathy, despite a lower in‐stent restenosis rate in DES compared with BMS, in‐segment restenosis and clinical cardiac endpoints are similar. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.