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.     

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)     

Four-year clinical follow-up of the rapamycin-eluting stent evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital registry

Although the safety of drug-eluting stents has been under considerable scrutiny, limited real-world follow-up data extending up to 4 years are available. The randomized clinical trials carefully selected patients and are not reflective of everyday practice. From April to October 2002, 508 consecutive patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) were enrolled. The control group consisted of 450 patients treated with bare-metal stents during the preceding 6 months. After 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of composite major adverse clinical events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) was found to be significantly lower in the SES group (23.0% vs 28.7%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.86), as were rates of target vessel revascularization (12.2% vs 17.8%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.83). There were no differences in all-cause mortality (10.5% for SES vs 10.6% for bare-metal stents, p = 0.9) or in the rates of cardiac death (4.5% vs 6.9%, p = 0.1). Although there was no difference in overall stent thrombosis (2.3% vs 2.2%, p = 1.0), SES had a higher rate of very late stent thrombosis (1.4% vs 0%, p = 0.02), balanced by a lower rate of early stent thrombosis (0.4% vs 1.8%, p = 0.05). In conclusion, after 4 years, SES were found to remain safe and effective compared with bare-metal stents. Nevertheless, the higher rate of very late stent thrombosis remains a concern. Longer term follow-up will be required to determine the extent of this problem.     

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.     

Sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for coronary bifurcations intervention

Backgrounds : Relative efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) compared with paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) remains controversial. It is unknown whether there are different effect and safety in coronary bifurcation treatment between SES and PES. Objectives : The meta‐analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of SES and PES in coronary bifurcation intervention. Methods : Five head‐to‐head clinical trials of SES versus PES in coronary bifurcation intervention were included. A total of 2,567 patients were involved in the meta‐analysis. Mean follow‐up period ranged from 6 to 35 months. The primary end points were the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) and main‐branch restenosis. Secondary end points were target vessel revascularization (TVR), cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and stent thrombosis. Results : Compared with PES, SES significantly reduced the risk of TLR (5.3% vs. 10.6%, odds ratio (OR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.38–0.70, P < 0.001), main‐branch restenosis (4.59% vs. 12.59%, OR 0.31; 95% CI = 0.18–0.55, P < 0.001) and TVR (7.05% vs. 12.57%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.42–0.81, P = 0.001) in coronary bifurcation intervention. In addition, SES group also had a significantly lower incidence of MACE (8.20% vs. 14.13%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.40–0.84, P = 0.004) than PES group. However, there were no statistical difference with respect to the incidence of cardiac death (1.64% vs. 1.09%, P = 0.19) and stent thrombosis (0.84% vs. 1.08%, P = 0.64) between SES and PES groups. Conclusions : Compared with PES, SES reduced the incidence of TLR, main‐branch restenosis and MACE in coronary bifurcation intervention, while the risk of stent thrombosis was similar between SES and PES groups. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Promising efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) on early and late outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: A series of 100 consecutive patients (September 2004 to November 2005)with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary stenting using SES ptember 24 hr) was compared with 100 consecutive patients (September 2003 to August 2004) treated with bare metal stent (BMS). The frequency of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis, and status of ticlopidine administration were assessed at 270 days. RESULTS: The rates of premature discontinuation of ticlopidine (SES group <3 months: 11%, BMS group <1 month: 11%, p = NS) and stent thrombosis (SES group: 1%, BMS group: 0%, p = NS) were similar in the two groups. At follow-up, restenosis rate and target vessel revascularization rate were lower in the SES group(4% vs 19%, p < 0.001 and 4% vs 10%, p = 0.149, respectively). Furthermore, the occurrence of MACE at 270 days was significantly less frequent in the SES group compared with the BMS group (6% vs. 17%, p = 0.038). Multivariate analysis showed SES use tended to predict 270-day MACE (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.02, p = 0.055). Culprit lesion located in the left main trunk was identified as an independent predictor of 270-day MACE (hazard ratio 5.43, 95% confidence interval 1.07-27.59, p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a SES was not associated with increased risk of stent thrombosis compared with a BMS. With lower rates of restenosis and subsequent target vessel revascularization, SES placement could provide superior outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction.     

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.     

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.     

Outcomes after unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stent compared to paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents

Compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs), a paucity of data exists regarding the clinical outcome of everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) in unselected patients with the entire spectrum of obstructive coronary artery disease. The present study cohort included 6,615 consecutive patients at Washington Hospital Center who underwent coronary artery stent implantation with EESs (n = 519), PESs (n = 2,036), or SESs (n = 4,060). Patients who received bare metal stents, zotarolimus-eluting stents, or 2 different drug-eluting stent types were excluded. The analyzed clinical end points were death, death or Q-wave myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or TLR at 1 year. The groups were well matched for the conventional risk factors for coronary artery disease, except for systemic hypertension, which differed among the groups. The unadjusted end points for EESs and PESs were death (4.5% vs 7.1%; p = 0.03), TLR (3.4% vs 4.6%; p = 0.24), target vessel revascularization (5.6% vs 7.1%; p = 0.46), death or Q-wave myocardial infarction (4.5% vs 7.4%; p = 0.02), and definite stent thrombosis (0.0% vs 0.7%; p = 0.09). The unadjusted end points for EES and SES were death (4.5% vs 5.2%; p = 0.45), TLR (3.4% vs 5.8%; p = 0.3), target vessel revascularization (5.6% vs 8.6%; p = 0.05), death or Q-wave myocardial infarction (4.5% vs 5.4%; p = 0.39), and definite stent thrombosis (0.0% vs 1.08%; p = 0.003). The rates of major adverse cardiac events were similar among the 3 groups. After multivariate analysis, the rate of death or Q-wave myocardial infarction between the EES and PES groups was no longer significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 2.20, p = 0.70). In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest the use of EES in routine clinical practice is both safe and effective but offers no clinically relevant advantage in terms of hard end points compared to PES or SES.     

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).     

Ten-year outcomes of early generation sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with left main coronary artery disease

To compare 10-year outcomes after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. Very long-term outcome data of patients with LMCA disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) have not been well described. In 10-year extended follow-up of the MAINCOMPARE registry, we evaluated 778 patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis who were treated with SES (n = 607) or PES (n = 171) between January 2000 and June 2006. The primary composite outcome (a composite of death, myocardial infarction [MI] or target-vessel revascularization [TVR]) was compared with an inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting (IPTW) adjustment. Clinical events have linearly accumulated over 10 years. At 10 years, there were no significant differences between SES and PES in the observed rates of the primary composite outcome (42.0% vs. 47.4%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–1.10), and definite stent thrombosis (ST) (1.9% vs. 1.8%; HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.28–3.64). In the IPTW-adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences between SES and PES in the risks for the primary composite outcome (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65–1.14) or definite ST (adjusted HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29–3.90). In patients who underwent DES implantation, high overall adverse clinical event rates (with a linearly increasing event rate over time) were observed during extended follow-up. At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with SES vs. PES for LMCA disease. The incidence of stent thrombosis was quite low and comparable between the groups.     

Clinical outcomes for sirolimus-eluting stents and polymer-coated paclitaxel-eluting stents in daily practice: results from a large multicenter registry.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the clinical outcome of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in a real-world scenario. BACKGROUND: In selected patients, SES has been associated with lower late luminal loss than PES. Whether this emerging biological difference could translate into different clinical efficacy in daily practice is presently unknown. METHODS: This analysis included 1,676 consecutive patients with de novo coronary lesions treated solely with drug-eluting stents (SES = 992; PES = 684). All patients were enrolled in a dynamic prospective registry comprising 13 hospitals. We assessed the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) during follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 29% of the patients had diabetes, 23% had prior MI, and 9% had poor left ventricular function. ST-segment elevation MI was diagnosed at admission in 12%. Multivessel intervention was performed in 16%. At 1-year follow-up, SES was associated with a reduced incidence of MACE (9.2% SES vs. 14.1% PES; p = 0.007) and TVR (5.0% SES vs. 10.0% PES; p = 0.0008) compared to PES. A propensity analysis with many clinical and angiographic variables was carried out to adjust for baseline differences. In this analysis, SES was associated with a 44% risk reduction of MACE (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.78) and a 55% reduction of TVR (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.70). This result was consistent across most subgroups tested. Similar rates of death and MI were observed in the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world population, SES improved 1-year clinical results as compared to PES.     

Outcomes after sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus

Insulin-treated diabetic patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation are prone to high rates of adverse cardiac events. The efficacy of the sirolimus- (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in this population was analyzed. Registry data for 434 consecutive patients with insulin-treated diabetes who underwent SES or PES implantation were analyzed. The end point, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 1 year, was high for patients with SESs and PESs (20.6% vs 20.2%; p=0.91). Cox regression and propensity analysis were used to compare outcomes. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for MACEs according to stent type (Cox model) was 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64 to 1.76, p=0.82). The propensity score-adjusted (C statistic=0.66) HR was 0.95 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.61, p=0.84). Stent thrombosis rates were relatively high at 2.0% for SESs and 1.5% for PESs (p=0.49). The propensity score-adjusted HR for stent thrombosis was 2.7 (95% CI 0.31 to 23.6, p=0.37). In conclusion, SESs and PESs are similarly efficacious in insulin-treated diabetic patients. The high MACE and stent thrombosis rates are of concern. Additional studies in this group of patients are required to determine the optimal mode of revascularization and minimize the overall stent thrombosis rate.     

Comparison of sirolimus‐eluting stent and paclitaxel‐eluting stent for long‐term cardiac adverse events in diabetic patients: The Korean multicenter angioplasty team (KOMATE) registry

Background: There is some controversy on long‐term cardiac outcomes between sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) in diabetes mellitus (DM). We compared cardiac adverse events after SES and PES implantation in patients with DM over a period of 3 year. Methods: A total of 634 patients with DM treated with SES (n = 428) or PES (n = 206) were consecutively enrolled in the KOMATE registry from 2003 to 2004. We assessed major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemia driven target vessel revascularization) and stent thrombosis (ST) according to the definitions set by the Academic Research Consortium. Results: Propensity score (PS) analysis was performed to adjust different baseline characteristics. The mean follow‐up duration was 38 ± 8 month (at least 36 month and up to 53 month). The 3‐year MACE rate did not show a significant difference between the two groups [52 (12.1%) in SES vs. 29 (14.1%) in PES, P = 0.496]. The definite and probable ST at 3 year were similar in both SES and PES [12 (2.8%) in SES vs. 7 (3.4%) in PES, P = 0.681]. There were no differences in hazard ratio for MACE and ST between two stents [MACE, crude: 0.844 (0.536–1.330) and adjusted for PS: 0.858 (0.530–1.389); ST, crude: 0.820 (0.323–2.083) and adjusted for PS: 0.960 (0.357–2.587)]. Conclusions: The present study demonstrated that long‐tem cardiac outcomes including ST were not significantly different between SES and PES in patients with DM. © 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)     

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.     

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.     

Clinical and angiographic follow-up of small vessel lesions treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents (from the TRUE Registry)

Several randomized trials have shown that sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) are effective in reducing restenosis in respect to bare-metal stents, including the subset of small vessels. The objective of this study was to evaluate "real world" angiographic and clinical outcomes of a large series of patients enrolled in the TRUE registry and treated with PES for both small vessel and very small vessel lesions. A consecutive series of 675 patients (926 lesions) with reference vessel diameter <2.75 mm measured by quantitative coronary angiography analysis were analyzed. The primary end point was the rate of angiographic in-stent restenosis and 1-year major adverse cardiac events. In this study 390 lesions were identified as small vessel (reference vessel diameter >or=2.25 and <2.75 mm) and 536 lesions as very small vessel (reference vessel diameter <2.25 mm). Overall in-stent restenosis was 15.5% (n = 96). Compared with small vessel, the very small vessel lesions had more in-stent restenosis (21.7% vs 11.4%, p <0.001) and in-segment restenosis (29.3% vs 22.5%, p = 0.055). The majority of the restenotic lesions (n = 125) were focal (57%, n = 71). At 1 year, cardiac death was 1.6% (n = 11), acute myocardial infarction 0.5% (n = 4.), and the target lesion revascularization 12.8% (n = 86). Cumulative major adverse cardiac events rate was 17.3% (n = 119). The rate of definite and probable stent thrombosis was 0.9% (n = 8). In conclusion, in comparison with historical bare-metal stent controls, this large series of small vessel lesions treated with PES confirms previous results reporting the efficacy of PES in small vessels. The rate of subacute and late stent thrombosis was low in this subgroup of patients.     

A meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to make a synthesis of the available evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of 2 drug-eluting stents (DES)--sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)--in patients with coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: It is not known whether there are differences in late outcomes between the 2 most commonly used DES: SES and PES. METHODS: Sixteen randomized trials of SES versus PES with a total number of 8,695 patients were included in this meta-analysis. A full set of individual outcome data from 5,562 patients was also available. Mean follow-up period ranged from 9 to 37 months. The primary efficacy end point was the need for reintervention (target lesion revascularization). The primary safety end point was stent thrombosis. Secondary end points were death and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: No significant heterogeneity was found across trials. Compared with PES, SES significantly reduced the risk of reintervention (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 0.87, p < 0.001) and stent thrombosis (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.94, p = 0.02) without significantly impacting on the risk of death (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13, p = 0.43) or MI (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.03, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stents are superior to PES in terms of a significant reduction of the risk of reintervention and stent thrombosis. The risk of death was not significantly different between the 2 DES, but there was a trend toward a higher risk of MI with PES, especially after the first year from the procedure.