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.     

Long-term clinical outcomes and thrombosis rates of sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in an unselected population with coronary artery disease (REWARDS registry)

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) significantly decrease the need for repeat interventions compared with bare metal stents. Comparative outcome data from randomized, controlled, head-to-head trials using these systems in a selected group of patients and lesions are conflicting; therefore, we compared clinical outcomes of unselected patients who underwent contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention with SES or PES implantation. In the REWARDS registry, 1-year clinical outcomes of 1,925 patients who received SESs were compared with 844 patients who received PESs. Outcomes at 30 days and 6 months were similar between groups, with a trend toward higher rates of stent thrombosis in the SES group compared with the PES group. Stent thrombosis rate at 12 months was significantly higher in the SES than in the PES group, with cumulative stent thrombosis rates of 1.9% in the SES group and 0.8% in the PES group (p = 0.034). However, overall rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were similar in the 2 groups at 12 months. After adjusting for significant multivariate predictors of MACEs, the hazard ratio at 1 year was 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.33, p = 0.607) and the major predictors for MACEs were a history of renal failure, diabetes, previous myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, class III or IV heart failure, type C lesions, and saphenous vein grafts. In conclusion, use of SESs and PESs in unrestricted, contemporary practice had comparable outcomes in terms of low rates of revascularization and clinical events. Stent thrombosis continues to be a major concern for SESs and PESs.     

Sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in comparison with balloon angioplasty for treatment of in-stent restenosis.

This study evaluated the acute and follow-up effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and nonpolymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in comparison will balloon angioplasty for treatment of complex in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions. Drug-eluting stents have been demonstrated to be highly effective for treatment of de novo lesions. The use of drug-eluting stents for treatment of complex ISR is less well defined. Eighty one lesions with in-stent restenosis (lesion length < 30 mm in a native coronary artery) were treated with either PTCA alone (n = 26 lesions in 25 patients), PES (n = 27 lesions in 24 patients; Achieve, Cook; 3,1 mug paclitaxel/mm(2) nonpolymer-based coating), SES (n = 28 lesions in 28 patients; Cypher, Cordis; 140 mug sirolimus/cm(2) metal surface area). Nine-month MACE rates were 32%, 8%, and 14% (all due to repeated revascularization procedures, except one death in the SES group) in the PTCA, PES, and SES group, respectively. Postintervention minimal lumen diameter in stent was significantly greater in the SES and the PES group in comparison with the PTCA group (2.37 +/- 0.26, 2.54 +/- 0.42, 1.78 +/- 0.23 mm; P < 0.001). At 6-month angiographic follow-up, late loss in stent was 0.77 +/- 0.45, 0.43 +/- 0.53, and 0.29 +/- 0.52 mm for the PTCA, PES, and SES group, respectively (P = 0.005). In-lesion restenosis rate was 61% for the PTCA group, 20% for the PES group, and 13% for the SES group (P = 0.042). The implantation of SES as well as nonpolymer PES proved to be effective for treatment of ISR. The combination of improved acute gain and reduced late loss results in a significantly improved angiographic follow-up result in comparison with PTCA.     

Angiographic analysis of pattern of late luminal loss in sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents

Late loss is becoming an important end point to compare drug-eluting stents; however, little is known about its pattern of distribution. We analyzed the pattern of late loss distribution in sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in a consecutive cohort of patients. From a cohort of 529 patients treated with drug-eluting stents in 1 year, we selected all patients who underwent angiographic follow-up. Three hundred fifty-nine patients with 592 de novo lesions received SESs (286 lesions) or PESs (306 lesions). Late loss and binary angiographic restenosis were analyzed. Binary restenosis occurred in 56 lesions (19.6%) treated with SESs compared with 53 (17.3%) treated with PESs (p = 0.48). The 2 late loss distributions were skewed to the right and were not normally distributed (p <0.001 for SES, p = 0.003 for PES). Late loss was significantly lower in the SES group (p = 0.03), with a median value of 0.29 mm (interquartile range -0.09 to 0.66) versus 0.41 mm (-0.02 to 0.85) in the PES group. When analyzing only restenotic lesions, late loss had a normal distribution in the SES and PES groups (p = 0.96 and 0.44, respectively) and was similar in the 2 groups (1.75 +/- 0.51 vs 1.82 +/- 0.62, p = 0.48). When evaluating nonrestenotic lesions, late loss was also normally distributed in the 2 groups (p = 0.75 for SES, p = 0.73 for PES) but was significantly lower (p = 0.002) after SES implantation (0.14 +/- 0.39) than after PES implantation (0.27 +/- 0.44). In conclusion, SESs and PESs have a bimodal pattern of late loss distribution. The observed difference in late loss between SES and PES seems to be partly explained by the decrease in late loss after SES implantation in nonrestenotic lesions (where SES approaches "zero late loss"). Thus, late loss may not be a reliable marker of the true efficacy of these devices due to its complex and nongaussian distribution.     

Impact of sirolimus-eluting and Paclitaxel-eluting stents on outcome in patients with diabetes mellitus and stenting in more than one coronary artery

Randomized trials have shown that implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) compared with bare metal stents. We compared the impact of SESs and PESs on clinical outcome in medically treated diabetic patients with multivessel stents. In this study, the in-hospital and 9-month clinical outcomes of 260 consecutive diabetic patients who underwent implantation of SESs (147 patients) or PESs (113 patients) were compared. MACEs were defined as death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. The baseline demographic and angiographic characteristics were well matched. An average of 3.0 +/- 1.3 versus 2.8 +/- 1.2 lesions were treated in the SES and PES groups, respectively (p = 0.34), with a mean stented length per patient of 73 +/- 43 versus 61 +/- 36 mm (p = 0.08). No significant difference was observed between the SES and PES groups for in-hospital (6.1% vs 3.5%, p = 0.34) or 9-month MACE (24.5% vs 19.5%, p = 0.34) rates or for subacute (1.4% vs 0.9%, p = 0.72) or late (0.7% vs 0.9%, p = 0.85) stent thrombosis. Insulin-requiring diabetic patients treated with SESs and PESs also had similar demographic and angiographic characteristics and rates of in-hospital (4.7% vs 7.7%, p = 0.57) and 9-month (28.0% vs 38.4%, p = 0.44) MACEs. Insulin-dependent diabetes was the only independent predictor of MACEs (odds ratio 2.68, 95% confidence interval 1.46 to 4.89, p = 0.001). In conclusion, our results demonstrated a relatively high incidence of MACEs in a diabetic population with multivessel disease, despite treatment with drug-eluting stents. In addition, we could not find any clear advantage of 1 type of stent versus the other.     

Outcome of overlapping heterogenous drug-eluting stents and of overlapping drug-eluting and bare metal stents

Overlapping homogenous drug-eluting stents (DESs) may be used instead of overlapping bare metal stents (BMSs) to treat coronary lesions longer than available stents. Yet, no data are available on patients treated with overlapping heterogenous DESs or DESs and BMSs. We prospectively assessed 9-month clinical outcome and 6-month angiographic late loss (evaluated at 5 different lesion segments) in a consecutive series of 40 patients who received overlapping homogenous DESs (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] or paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES]), heterogenous DESs (SES + PES), or overlapping DESs and BMSs. In 8 patients (7 with angiographic follow-up) with overlapping heterogenous DESs, no angiographic or clinical adverse event was observed. Moreover, in-segment late loss was similar to that of patients who received homogenous DESs. In 8 patients (7 with angiographic follow-up) with overlapping DESs and BMSs, there was a higher incidence of major adverse events (3 repeat percutaneous coronary interventions and 1 death, 50% adverse event rate) and worse in-segment binary restenosis rate compared with patients treated with homogenous or heterogenous DESs (p = 0.02 and 0.012, respectively). Late lumen loss at the site of stent overlap showed significant differences according to type of overlapped stent (1.00 +/- 0.76 mm in DES-BMS overlap, 0.32 +/- 0.55 mm in PES-PES overlap, 0.13 +/- 0.11 in SES-PES overlap, and 0.08 +/- 0.10 mm in SES-SES overlap, p = 0.005). In conclusion, the present study suggests that overlap of DESs and BMSs should be avoided because the antirestenotic effect of DESs is skewed by contiguous BMS implantation. Overlap between SESs and PESs in this very preliminary report was associated with no specific adverse event.     

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.     

Patency of paclitaxel-eluting versus bare metal stents long term after implantation in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Drug-eluting stents effectively inhibit neointimal hyperplasia within the first year, thereby reducing the need for repeat revascularization. However, a delayed pattern of restenosis might be more prominent in drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents (BMSs). The extent of restenosis of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) long term after implantation in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is currently unknown. The present study was designed to evaluate very late luminal loss (VLLL) of PESs used in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction compared to BMSs. A total of 116 patients (61 with PESs and 55 with BMSs) initially included in the Paclitaxel Eluting Stent Versus Conventional Stent in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (PASSION) trial and who were free from previous lesion failure underwent angiographic follow-up. Off-line quantitative coronary analysis of the angiogram immediately after stent implantation and at follow-up was performed. The primary end point was VLLL within the stent. The presence of binary restenosis was defined as diameter stenosis >50% as a secondary end point. The mean interval between stent implantation and follow-up was 4.1 ± 0.5 years in both stent groups. In-stent VLLL was 0.12 mm (interquartile range -0.03 to 0.42) in the PES group versus 0.30 mm (interquartile range 0.08 to 0.69) in the BMS group (p = 0.011). In-segment binary restenosis was found in 4 patients (6.6%) with a PES and 6 patients (10.9%) with a BMS (p = 0.40). In conclusion, angiographic follow-up 4 years after implantation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction showed that in patients prospectively randomized to PESs or BMSs, VLLL was low in both stent groups. PESs were associated with lower VLLL than BMSs, and the observed rate of binary restenosis was not significantly different between the 2 stent groups.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents versus Paclitaxel-eluting stents in the treatment of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus

This study was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) on the outcomes of diabetic patients. Recent data with drug-eluting stents have shown improved clinical outcomes in diabetic patients. This study compared outcomes between the 2 available drug-eluting stents, SESs and PESs. From the prospective drug-eluting stent registries at the investigators' institution, 1,320 consecutive diabetic patients treated with SESs (n=873, 1,293 lesions) and PESs (n=447, 733 lesions) were identified and their in-hospital and 1- and 6-month clinical outcomes compared. Baseline characteristics showed more men, more patients with previous coronary bypass surgery, and smaller ejection fractions in the PES group and more obese patients in the SES group. Procedural characteristics were similar except for more left anterior descending artery and proximal lesions and the greater use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the SES group and more type C lesions, direct stenting, and stents per patient in the PES group. In-hospital complications were similar. Clinical follow-up at 1 month was also similar between the 2 groups, including subacute stent thrombosis. At 6 months, the 2 groups had similar mortality (7% vs 7%), myocardial infarctions (18% vs 21%), target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiac events (11% vs 12%), and late thrombosis (0.3% vs 0%). Subanalysis of insulin-treated diabetic patients showed no significant differences in outcomes in the 2 groups. No significant differences were found between SESs and PESs on Cox regression analysis for hazard ratios. In conclusion, SESs and PESs are associated with similar efficacy and safety with regard to repeat revascularization rates, major adverse cardiac events, and stent thrombosis up to 6 months for the treatment of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus regardless of insulin therapy.     

Comparison with conventional therapies of repeated sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis

This study compared the safety and efficacy of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) with conventional therapies for restenosis after drug-eluting stent placement. Fifty-five consecutive patients with 58 restenotic lesions (31 treated with SESs and 27 treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents) underwent PCI using SESs (33 lesions) or conventional therapies comprising cutting balloon angioplasty alone (11 lesions) or intracoronary brachytherapy (14 lesions). Baseline characteristics were similar for the 2 groups, except for greater edge involvement (75.8% vs 36.0%, p = 0.002) and less stent expansion (0.74 +/- 0.17 vs 0.95 +/- 0.21, p = 0.006) in the SES group than in the conventional group. The SES group achieved a greater postprocedural luminal gain than the conventional group (1.98 +/- 0.50 vs 1.22 +/- 0.48 mm, p <0.001). Follow-up angiography showed that late luminal loss (0.27 +/- 0.56 vs 0.76 +/- 0.84 mm, p = 0.021) and recurrent angiographic restenosis rate (3.6% vs 35.0%, p = 0.006) were lower in the SES group than in the conventional group. The repeated target lesion revascularization-free survival rates at 1 year were 96.7 +/- 3.2% for the SES group and 91.7 +/- 5.6% for the conventional group (p = 0.399). In conclusion, use of SESs was associated with a lower recurrent restenosis rate compared with conventional therapies.     

Effect of sirolimus-eluting stent in diabetic patients with small coronary arteries (a SES-SMART substudy)

Randomized clinical trials have shown that sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) decrease restenosis rates compared with bare metal stents (BMSs), but their efficacy among patients who have diabetes mellitus remains to be established. This study investigated the effect of SES implantation in a high-risk population (i.e., patients who had diabetes and small coronary vessel disease). For this purpose, we analyzed outcomes of the subset of patients who had diabetes and were enrolled in the SES-SMART, a randomized trial that compared the results of implantation of SESs and BMSs in small coronary arteries. Twenty-nine patients who had diabetes were originally randomized to receive SESs and 45 patients received BMSs. The use of SESs was associated with approximately 60% decreases in the relative incidence of in-segment angiographic restenosis (63% vs 25%, p = 0.003) and in-segment late loss (0.76 vs 0.28 mm, p <0.002). Angiographic patterns of restenosis were more favorable in the SES group. SES implantation was associated with a 15% absolute decrease in adverse clinical events. In patients who had insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, SESs showed a high in-segment restenosis rate (40%) that was principally due to persistent restenosis. In conclusion, in diabetics with small coronary arteries, SES implantation significantly reduces the incidence of the 8-month angiographic restenosis rate compared with BMSs.     

Comparison of clinical outcomes of overlapping sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation for the treatment of single coronary lesions has proved to be effective and durable. However, the safety and efficacy of overlapping drug-eluting stents for the treatment of long lesions have not been well established. In total, 114 patients who received overlapping drug-eluting stents were identified, 55 of whom received overlapping SESs and 59 received overlapping PESs. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were balanced. In-hospital complications were similar between the 2 groups. At 30-day and 6-month follow-ups, all clinical outcomes were also similar. In addition, the event-free survival rate was comparable (p = 0.71). Implantation of overlapping drug-eluting stents for the treatment of long, native coronary lesions is feasible and effective. In conclusion, in this observational study, clinical outcomes appeared similar in patients treated with overlapping SES implantation compared with those treated with overlapping PES implantation.     

Selective versus exclusive use of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in multivessel coronary artery disease.

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs; Cypher) have demonstrated a significant reduction in restenosis rates when compared to bare metal stents (BMSs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the strategy of exclusive use of two SESs versus the combination of one BMS and one SES for two-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). It was found that the selective use of one SES combined with one BMS in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention that requires more than one stent is safe, feasible, and associated with favorable procedural, 30-day, and 6-month clinical outcomes when compared to the exclusive use of SESs.     

Periprocedural and late consequences of overlapping Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents: pooled analysis of five clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research was to determine the relative safety and efficacy of multiple (> or =2) overlapping Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, New Jersey). BACKGROUND: Overlapping coronary stents are common. The periprocedural and late clinical and angiographic consequences of overlapped coronary stents are not clearly defined, particularly for drug-eluting stents. METHODS: All patients enrolled into five clinical trials of the SES were analyzed. Three of these trials were prospective randomized comparisons of the SES to the bare-metal stent (BMS), and two were prospective non-randomized trials of SES-treated patients with historical controls. All clinical and angiographic outcomes in overlap-stent-treated patients were compared by stent type and with single-stent-treated patients for the same stent device. RESULTS: In all, 575 patients with stent overlap (337 SES, 238 BMS) and 1,162 patients with single stents (697 SES, 465 BMS) were analyzed. Stent overlap was associated with a greater late lumen loss in stent and more frequent angiographic restenosis regardless of stent type. Among overlap-stent-treated patients, the SES provided similar magnitude of restenosis benefit as observed for single-stent-treated patients. Overlapped SES was not associated with an increase in myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy of SES overlap, when required, is both safe and efficacious in reducing restenosis with no increase in the incidence of myocardial infarction or major adverse cardiovascular events, when compared with a bare metal coronary stent prosthesis.     

Comparison of C-reactive protein levels before and after coronary stenting and restenosis among patients treated with sirolimus-eluting versus bare metal stents

We prospectively studied the inflammatory response to coronary stenting (calculated as the difference between the highest postprocedural C-reactive protein [CRP] and baseline CRP levels [DeltaCRP]) and restenosis in 301 patients who received a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 149) or a bare stent (n = 152) in the setting of a randomized trial. Median values of DeltaCRP were 3.1 mg/L in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and 3.0 mg/L in the bare stent group (p = 0.71). In the sirolimus-eluting group, restenotic rates were 9.7% in the subgroup with DeltaCRP higher than the median and 11.5% in the subgroup with DeltaCRP no higher than the median (p = 0.37). In the bare stent group, restenotic rates were 28.6% in the subgroup with DeltaCRP higher than the median and 15.4% in the subgroup with DeltaCRP no higher than the median (p = 0.04).     

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.     

Impact of sirolimus-eluting stent on the outcome of patients with chronic total occlusions

Several randomized trials have demonstrated that stent implantation after successful recanalization of long-term total occlusions decreases restenosis and reocclusion rates. The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) has recently proved its efficacy to decrease restenosis in selected patients. However, the efficacy of SES implantation in patients who have chronic total occlusions is currently unknown. Therefore, we investigated procedural and 6- and 12-month angiographic outcomes (analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography) and left ventricular function in 60 patients who received SESs and 120 patients who received bare metal stents (BMSs). Minimum luminal diameter did not differ immediately after recanalization (SES group 3.04 +/- 0.50 mm vs BMS group 3.12 +/- 0.48 mm). After 6 months, the SES group still had significantly larger luminal diameters (3.04 +/- 0.44 mm vs 1.94 +/- 0.98 mm) and significantly lower restenosis and reocclusion rates (2% and 0%, respectively) than did the BMS group (32% and 6%, respectively). Late loss was significantly smaller in the SES group than in the BMS group. At follow-up, the SES group had fewer cardiac events, including target lesion revascularization (p <0.001), than did the BMS group. In conclusion, SES implantation after recanalization of chronic total occlusion provides a better clinical outcome with less restenosis and target lesion revascularization after 6 months than does BMSs.     

Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Chronic Renal Insufficiency

Background: Chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) is associated with an increased incidence of restenosis and stent thrombosis. Drug-eluting stents (DES), when compared to bare metal stents (BMS), reduce the incidence of restenosis in these patients. This study aimed to examine whether there are differences in clinical outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with CRI who are subjected to coronary intervention.
Methods: A cohort of 570 patients with CRI who underwent intervention with DES (346 with SES and 224 with PES) were followed clinically up to 1 year and the clinical events were recorded and compared between groups.
Results: Baseline and procedural characteristics were similar, with a slightly higher number of diseased vessels in the SES group as compared to the PES group (2.3 ± 0.9 vs 2.1 ± 0.9, P = 0.06). The overall rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis were similar. The PES group had lower revascularization rates when compared to the SES group. After covariate adjustment, however, there was no difference seen in target vessel revascularization between stent types (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.3 [0.8–6.2], P = 0.110). The strongest predictor of death and MACE at 1 year was the number of diseased vessels.
Conclusions: Patients with CRI who undergo PCI with either SES or PES have similar repeat revascularization rates and acceptable stent thrombosis rates, although they continue to have high MACE and death rates. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:33–39)     

Two-Year Follow-up of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction

It has been shown that drug-eluting stents (DESs) significantly reduce restenosis rate when compared with bare-metal stents in a broad range of patients with coronary artery disease. However, current data are limited about the efficacy of different DESs in treatment of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. We retrospectively examined 127 STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. PES group consisted of 79 patients and SES group consisted of 48 patients. Patients were analyzed for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis (ST). The mean follow-up period was 2 years. The mean age was 53 ± 11 years in the SES group and 59 ± 11 years in the PES group (p = 0.03). Baseline and procedural characteristics were similar in the two groups except stent lengths, which was longer in the SES group. Two-year MACE rates were 8.3% in the SES group and 16.4% in the PES group (p = 0.28). Rates for ST for SES and PES groups were as follows: early ST was 2.08 versus 2.53%; late ST was 2.08 versus 2.53%; and very late ST was 2.08 versus 2.53% (p > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in MACE and ST rates between the SES and PES groups in the 2-year follow-up period. High ST rates detected in our study need to be clarified with future prospective and randomized clinical trials.     

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.