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.     

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 of three-year clinical outcome of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the RESEARCH and T-SEARCH Registries)

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) recently proved to be superior to bare metal stents (BMSs) in decreasing the need for repeat revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at 1 year. Whether this also holds for paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) is currently unclear and the long-term relatively efficacy of the 2 drug-eluting stents is currently unknown. We investigated the 3-year efficacy of SESs and PESs versus BMSs in patients with STEMI. Primary angioplasty was performed in a consecutive group of 505 patients (BMSs in 183, SESs in 186, PESs in 136). At 3 years, the cumulative mortality rate was comparable in the 3 groups: 13.3% in the BMS group, 11.5% in the SES group, and 12.4% in the PES group (nonsignificant for all). The rate of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 12.0% in the BMS group compared with 8.0% and 7.7% in the SES and PES groups, respectively (p = 0.12 for BMS vs SES, 0.30 for BMS vs PES, 0.62 for SES vs PES). The cumulative incidence of death, MI, or TVR was 25.5% in the BMS group compared with 17.9% and 20.6% in the SES and PES groups, respectively (p = 0.06 for BMS vs SES, 0.32 for BMS vs PES, 0.45 for SES vs PES). Angiographic stent thrombosis occurred in 2.4% of all patients (BMS 1.6%, SES 2.7%, PES 2.9%). In conclusion, in this relatively small consecutive patient cohort, the use of SESs and PESs was no longer associated with significantly lower rates of TVR and major adverse cardiace events in patients with STEMI after 3 years of follow-up. A high frequency of stent thrombosis was observed in the 2 drug-eluting stent groups.     

Effect of Paclitaxel-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents on coronary restenosis in Korean diabetic patients

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), the angiographic rates of restenosis have reduced dramatically but less prominently in diabetic patients. We compared the effects of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) on 6-month angiographic and clinical outcomes in Korean diabetic patients. METHOD: Diabetic patients with de novo coronary lesions (169 patients with 190 lesions) were randomly assigned to either SES or PES in six different cardiovascular centers from April 2005 to January 2006. Patients with vessel size >2.0 mm and < or =2 vessel diseases requiring < or =2 DES implantation were included in the study. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. At 6-month follow-up, the late lumen loss (0.26 +/- 0.76 in the SES group vs. 0.39 +/- 0.92 mm in the PES group, P = 0.356) and the rate of binary restenosis (2.8%[n = 2] in the SES group vs. 6.9%[n = 5] in the PES group, P = 0.441) showed no significant differences. Rates of death (1.2%[n = 1] in the SES group vs. 1.2%[n = 1] in the PES group, P = 1.000), myocardial infarction (1.2%[n = 1] in the SES group vs. 1.2%[n = 1] in the PES group, P = 1.000), and target lesion revascularization (2.4%[n = 2] in the SES group vs. 4.8%[n = 4] in the PES group, P = 0.443) were similar in both groups during 6 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The use of either SES or PES demonstrated similar 6-month angiographic and clinical outcomes in Korean diabetic patients with coronary artery disease.     

Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes between sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents following rotational atherectomy

Rotational atherectomy (RA) can facilitate smooth stent delivery and stent expansion through lesion modification for a calcified coronary lesion. Several studies reported that sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation following RA showed a lower rate of revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). However, there are limited data that compared the clinical outcomes between SES and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) after RA. We compared the long-term clinical outcomes of SES and PES following RA. Two hundred and thirty-three consecutive patients (SES n = 179, PES n = 54) who were treated with SES or PES following RA between 10^th September 2004 and 13^th April 2010 were investigated. Follow-up data for clinical outcomes were obtained in 91.4% of all subjects. The median follow-up period was 630 days (interquartile range, 300 to 1170 days) in the SES group, and 625 days (interquartile range, 285 to 900 days) in the PES group. Clinical outcomes including target lesion revascularization (TLR) (SES 4.9% versus PES 9.8%, P = 0.31), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (SES 6.8% versus PES 11.8%, P = 0.25), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (SES 14.8% versus PES 13.7%, P = 0.8) were not statistically different between the groups. The unadjusted cumulative event rates estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test showed no significant differences between the two groups for time to event for TLR, cardiovascular death, all-cause death, or MACE. In conclusion, there was no significant difference in the long-term clinical outcomes between SES and PES following RA.     

Drug-eluting stents show delayed healing: paclitaxel more pronounced than sirolimus.

AIMS: To understand wound healing after drug-eluting stents (DES) placement in humans, we studied the histology of in-stent restenosis (ISR) tissue obtained by atherectomy from bare metal stents (BMS) and DES in comparison with de novo atherosclerosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: The tissue was retrieved from ISR in ten sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and nine paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), six BMS, and nine stenotic de novo atherosclerotic lesions and processed for histology and immunocytochemistry. Patients with ISR in PES showed a significantly higher incidence of unstable angina upon presentation for re-intervention (P = 0.046). De novo tissue tended to be more collagen rich, whereas ISR tissue tended to be more proteoglycan rich. In all groups, cell content consisted almost exclusively of smooth muscle cells. Histology showed that fibrinoid in ISR tissue was present only in DES (P = 0.004), as late as 2 years following DES placement, indicating a persistent incomplete healing response. The amount of fibrinoid, given as a percentage of total tissue in each atherectomy specimen, was greater in PES than in SES (17 vs. 5%, P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: ISR in DES shows incomplete neointimal healing as late as 2 years after implantation. Patients with ISR in PES presented with more unstable angina and showed more pronounced signs of delayed healing than SES.     

Characterization of plaque prolapse after drug-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients: a three-dimensional volumetric intravascular ultrasound outcome study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research was to evaluate the plaque prolapse (PP) phenomenon after bare-metal (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus using 3-dimensional volumetric intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). BACKGROUND: Plaque prolapse has been observed in up to 22% of patients treated with BMS. Diabetic patients have a larger atherothrombotic burden and may be more prone to have PP. However, the incidence of PP and its clinical impact after DES implantation is unknown. METHODS: Three-dimensional IVUS was performed after intervention and at 9-month follow-up in 168 patients with diabetes (205 lesions) treated with bare BX Velocity stents ((BX Velocity/Sonic, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson) (BMS, n = 65), sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher, Cordis) (SES, n = 69), and paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) (PES, n = 71). Intravascular ultrasound data at the sites of PP were compared with stented segments without PP in each lesion. Outcomes were evaluated at 9- and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: There were 42 sites of PP (BMS = 11, SES = 11, PES = 20, p = NS) in 34 stented segments of 205 (16.6%) lesions. Plaque prolapse was more frequent in the right coronary artery and in chronic total occlusion lesions. Post-procedure PP volume was 1.95 mm3 in BMS, 2.96 mm3 in SES, and 4.53 mm3 in PES. At follow-up, tissue volume increased at PP sites in both BMS and PES, but not after SES. Neointimal proliferation was similar between PP and non-PP sites. Stent thrombosis and restenosis rates were similar between PP and non-PP lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PP after implantation of new generation tubular stents in patients with diabetes remains high. Drug-eluting stent implantation was not associated with increased risk of PP. Plaque prolapse was not associated with stent thrombosis or increased neointimal proliferation.     

Comparison of one-year clinical outcomes with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in everyday practice

BACKGROUND:

In randomized trials, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been shown to be superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in reducing restenosis. However, the effectiveness of PES in patients treated during routine practice has not been fully established.

METHODS:

A retrospective comparison of PES with BMS in consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from April 2003 to March 2004 was conducted. Outcomes included the composite of death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at one year, as well as stent thrombosis.

RESULTS:

A total of 512 patients were treated with PES, and 722 patients were treated with BMS. Patients in the PES group were more likely to receive stents that were 20 mm in length or longer (52.2% versus 33.3%, P<0.0001), 2.5 mm in diameter or smaller (29.1% versus 12.5%, P<0.0001) and implanted in bifurcation positions (15.4% versus 11.6%, P=0.02). At one year, the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction and TLR was 6.1% in the PES group compared with 10.8% in the BMS group (P=0.004). The one-year rate of stent thrombosis was 0.59% in the PES group compared with 0.28% in the BMS group (P=0.4).

CONCLUSIONS:

Despite being used in higher-risk lesions, there was a lower rate of major cardiac events at one year in patients treated with PES, primarily driven by the reduction in TLR. Thus, the experience with PES in contemporary practice applied to a broader population appears to be consistent with the results reported in randomized trials.     

Ten-year survival of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents and bare-metal stents

IntroductionCompared to bare-metal stents (BMS), drug-eluting stents reduce stent restenosis and improve subsequent revascularization rates. The impact on patients’ survival has been the subject of debate.ObjectiveTo assess the long-term (10-year) survival of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in comparison with BMS.MethodsIn a single-center registry, 600 consecutive patients who underwent successful PCI with SES between April 2002 and February 2003 were compared to 594 patients who underwent PCI with BMS between January 2002 and April 2002, just before the introduction of SES. Clinical and procedural data were collected at the time of intervention and 10-year survival status was assessed via the national life status database.ResultsAll baseline characteristics were similar between groups except for smaller stent diameter (2.84±0.38 vs. 3.19±0.49 mm; p<0.001), greater stent length (18.50±8.2 vs. 15.96±6.10 mm; p<0.001) and higher number of stents per patient (1.95 vs. 1.46, p<0.001) in the SES group. Overall five- and 10-year all-cause mortality was 9.6% (n=110) and 22.7% (n=272), respectively. The adjusted HR for 10-year mortality in patients undergoing PCI with SES was 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.94; p=0.013), corresponding to a relative risk reduction of 19.8%. Other than PCI with BMS, older age, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lower ejection fraction were independent predictors of 10-year mortality.ConclusionTo date, this is the longest follow-up study ever showing a potential survival benefit of first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents, supporting prior observations on their sustained efficacy and safety relative to contemporary BMS.     

Two-year clinical outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients.

AIMS: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients is associated with an increased risk of restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We assessed the impact of diabetes on long-term outcome after PCI with sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting (PES) stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the SIRTAX trial, 1012 patients were randomized to treatment with SES (n = 503) or PES (n = 509). A stratified analysis of outcomes was performed according to the presence or absence of diabetes. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between SES and PES in patients with (N = 201) and without diabetes (N = 811). Clinical outcome was worse in diabetic compared with non-diabetic patients regarding death (9.0% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.004) and MACE (defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or TLR; 19.9% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.007) at 2 years. Among diabetic patients, SES reduced MACE by 47% (14.8% vs. 25.8%, HR = 0.52, P = 0.05) and TLR by 61% (7.4% vs. 17.2%, HR = 0.39, P = 0.03) compared with PES at 2 years. CONCLUSION: Diabetic patients have worse prognosis than non-diabetic patients undergoing PCI with DES. Among the diabetic patient population of this trial, SES reduce repeat revascularization procedures and MACE more effectively than PES and to a similar degree as in non-diabetic patients.     

One-year results of the SCORPIUS study: a German multicenter investigation on the effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to analyze the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in a high-risk group of diabetic patients. Previously, this had been analyzed only in substudies of larger trials or in clinical investigations enrolling a small number of patients. BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents are highly effective in reducing the rate of in-stent restenosis. METHODS: Two hundred patients with diabetes and de novo coronary artery lesions were enrolled in 16 centers: 98 were randomly assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and 102 received bare-metal stents (BMS). The primary end point was in-segment late luminal loss. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate was analyzed at 30 days and 8 and 12 months. RESULTS: The extent of in-segment late luminal loss in the SES group was 0.18 mm compared with 0.74 mm in the BMS group. In-segment restenosis was identified on follow-up angiography in 8.8% of the patients in SES and in 42.1% in BMS (p < 0.0001). Target lesion revascularization was performed in 5.3% of the patients in SES and in 21.1% of the patients in BMS (p = 0.002). The SES was effective in the treatment group with oral diabetic medication as well as in the insulin-dependent treatment group (3.6% SES vs. 38.8% BMS). There was no subacute stent thrombosis in the SES group up to 1 year. The MACE rate was not significantly different at 30 days. At 12 months, MACE rate was 14.7% in SES versus 35.8% in BMS. CONCLUSIONS: The SES is safe and highly effective in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease and associated with a significant decrease in the extent of late luminal loss.     

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.     

Comparison of the effectiveness of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for small coronary artery lesions.

BACKGROUND: The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) reduce restenosis in small coronary artery lesions. However, it is not clear which of these stents is superior in terms of clinical outcomes. METHODS: The authors retrospectively examined 197 patients with 245 de novo small coronary artery lesions (相似文献   

Comparison of five-year outcome of octogenarians undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents (from the RESEARCH and T-SEARCH Registries)

Although octogenarians are increasingly referred for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), data are lacking on long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents in this high-risk subpopulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate 5-year clinical outcome of octogenarians who underwent PCI using sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) compared to bare-metal stents (BMSs). From January 2000 to December 2005, 319 consecutive octogenarian patients who underwent PCI with BMSs (n = 93, January 2000 to April 2002), SESs (n = 52, April 2002 to February 2003), or PESs (n = 174, February 2003 to December 2005) were included prospectively. Primary study end points were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. Mean age of the study population was 83 ± 2 years and 51% of patients were men. Median follow-up duration was 5.4 years (range 3 to 9). Five-year mortality rates in the BMS, SES, and PES cohorts were similar (41%, 42%, and 41%, respectively). Cumulative 5-year MACE-free survival in the BMS, SES, and PES cohorts were 44%, 52%, and 48%, respectively. Compared to the BMS cohort, adjusted hazard ratios for MACEs in the SES and PES cohorts were 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3 to 0.9, p <0.05) and 0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 1.4, p = 0.2), respectively. Overall, use of drug-eluting stents was associated with fewer MACEs (adjusted hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9, p <0.05) and a trend toward less target vessel revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.1). In conclusion, PCI with drug-eluting stents in octogenarians was found to be safe and more effective compared to PCI with BMSs.     

Cost analysis from two randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to analyze the cost of percutaneous coronary interventions with use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients at high risk of restenosis. BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown different clinical efficacy with these drug-eluting stents. Whether this difference extends on cost estimates between the 2 stents is not known. METHODS: We included 450 patients with diabetes mellitus and in-stent restenosis from 2 randomized studies comparing SES with PES. Assigned costs for the economic evaluation were the initial hospitalization and all subsequent cardiac-related inpatient/outpatient health resources during 9 to 12 months of clinical follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from the health insurance system's perspective. RESULTS: There were no differences between the 2 study groups regarding mortality (p = 0.78) and myocardial infarction rates (p = 0.76). Target lesion revascularization was performed in 16 patients (7.1%) in the SES group and in 34 patients (15.1%) in the PES group (p = 0.01). Initial hospital costs were not significantly different between the 2 stents (p = 0.53). The follow-up costs were, however, different: 2,684 +/- 2,072 euros per patient treated with SES and 4,527 +/- 6,466 euros per patient treated with PES (p < 0.001). Total costs also differed at the end of the follow-up: 8,924 +/- 3,077 euros per patient treated with SES and 10,903 +/- 7,205 euros per patient treated with PES (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients at high risk of restenosis, use of SES is associated with lower costs compared with PES. The cost savings are mainly due to the reduced need of repeat revascularization procedures with SES.     

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.     

Impact of vessel size on outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: a subgroup analysis of the SIRTAX trial.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of vessel size on angiographic and long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) within a randomized trial (SIRTAX [Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Compared With Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent for Coronary Revascularization]). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention in small-vessel disease is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). METHODS: A total of 1,012 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with SES (n = 503) or PES (n = 509). A stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcome was performed up to 2 years after PCI according to size of the treated vessel (reference vessel diameter < or =2.75 vs. >2.75 mm). RESULTS: Of 1,012 patients, 370 patients (37%) with 495 lesions underwent stent implantation in small vessels only, 504 patients (50%) with 613 lesions in large vessels only, and 138 patients (14%) with 301 lesions in both small and large vessels (mixed). In patients with small-vessel stents, SES reduced MACE by 55% (10.4% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.004), mainly driven by a 69% reduction of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (6.0% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.001) compared with PES at 2 years. In patients with large- and mixed-vessel stents, rates of MACE (large: 10.4% vs. 13.1%; p = 0.33; mixed: 16.7% vs. 18.0%; p = 0.83) and TLR (large: 6.9% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.47; mixed: 16.7% vs. 15.4%; p = 0.86) were similar for SES and PES. There were no significant differences with respect to death and myocardial infarction between the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PES, SES more effectively reduced MACE and TLR in small-vessel disease. Differences between SES and PES appear less pronounced in patients with large- and mixed-vessel disease. (The SIRTAX trial; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00297661?order=1; NCT00297661).     

Impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcomes of patients treated for acute myocardial infarction by primary angioplasty.

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) are currently being used in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). SESs have not been evaluated in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction by primary angioplasty. We report our initial experience with SESs implanted during primary angioplasty. One hundred and three patients were treated within 12 hr after onset of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with primary angioplasty and SES implantation. Those patients were compared to 504 patients treated with bare metal stents (BMSs). Angiographic success (TIMI flow grade 3 and residual stenosis < 50%) was completed in 98% of patients with SESs and no subacute stent thrombosis was reported. In-hospital outcomes were similar in the SES and BMS groups. At 6 months, major cardiac events were less frequent in the SES group than in the BMS group (9% vs. 24%, respectively; P < 0.001), driven by a lesser need for repeat revascularization with SESs (1% vs. 10.3% with BMSs; P = 0.014). Mortality at 6 months was 7% with SESs and 11% with BMSs (P = 0.14). SESs are safe and effective for the treatment of AMI by primary angioplasty. As compared to BMSs, SESs improve long-term outcome after AMI, mainly by reducing the need for repeat revascularization.     

Three-year clinical outcomes after coronary stenting of chronic total occlusion using sirolimus-eluting stents: insights from the rapamycin-eluting stent evaluated at Rotterdam cardiology hospital-(RESEARCH) registry.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that the 1-year survival-free from target lesion revascularization was 97.4% in patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). There are currently no long-term results of the efficacy of SES in this subset of lesions. We assessed the 3-year clinical outcomes of 147 patients with CTO treated with either SES or bare metal stents (BMS). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 147 (BMS = 71, SES = 76) patients were included. Four patients died in the BMS group while five patients died in the SES group, P = 0.8; two myocardial infarctions occurred in both groups, P = 0.9; and target vessel revascularization was performed in nine patients in the BMS and seven in the SES group, P = 0.5. The cumulative event-free survival of MACE was 81.7% in BMS group and 84.2% in SES group, P = 0.7. Two patients of the SES group had a coronary aneurism at 3-year angiographic follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SES was no longer associated with significantly lower rates of target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac events in patients with CTOs after 3 years of follow-up compared with BMSs.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

Recently, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the rate of adverse events among selected patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). We present real-world experience from a single center registry evaluating the safety and efficacy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected patients with STEMI using SES. Clinical outcome at 300-day follow-up in two cohorts of 225 consecutive patients who underwent bare metal stent (BMS) (January 2004-February 2005, n = 123) or SES (March 2005-December 2006, n = 102) implantation was examined. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, nonfatal reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). The incidence of short-term MACE was similar between the SES group and BMS group (30-day rate of MACE: 4.9% versus 8.9%, P = 0.30). Angiographically documented stent thrombosis within 30 days after primary PCI was not diagnosed in any patient in the SES group and occurred in 1 patient treated with BMS (0 versus 0.8%, P = 1.0). At 300 days, SES implantation significantly reduced the incidence of MACE (7.8% versus 22.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.71], P = 0.005), mainly due to a marked reduction in the risk of TVR (1.0% versus 17.1%, HR 0.05 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.39], P < 0.001). There was no new onset of documented stent thrombosis between 30 and 300 days in either group. Thus, this real-world registry confirmed the safety and efficacy of SES with remarkably lower rates of TVR and MACE in the setting of primary PCI for unselected patients with STEMI in a real-world scenario.