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.     

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.     

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.     

Selective drug‐eluting stent implantation for high‐risk patients with acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: Rationale and safety

Background : A selective policy of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients at high risk of restenosis may maximize the benefit from restenosis reduction and minimize risk from late stent thrombosis (LaST). Objectives : We sought to prospectively determine the safety of selective DES implantation for long lesions (>20 mm), small vessels (<2.5 mm) and diabetic patients in patients with STEMI using a prospective single‐center registry. Methods : A total of 252 patients who underwent primary PCI between January 2005 and December 2006 were included: 126 consecutive patients receiving DES were compared with 126 age‐, sex‐, and vessel‐matched controls with STEMI who received bare‐metal stents. Composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (death, AMI, and target vessel revascularization) were used as the primary outcome measure. Results : Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics and outcomes were similar between groups except for the prespecified diabetes, lesion length, and maximum stent diameter. Long‐term outcomes at a median follow up of 34 ± 6 months showed significant reductions in reinfarction (2% vs. 11%, P = 0.03), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (10% vs. 24%, P = 0.02), and composite MACE (18% vs. 31%, P = 0.03) with DES, with no excess of death (9% vs. 7%, P = NS) or LaST (2% vs. 1%, P = NS). In a Cox multivariate model, clopidogrel cessation at long‐term follow‐up was the most powerful predictor of hierarchical MACE (HR: 5.165; 95%CI: 2.019–13.150, P = 0.001). Conclusions : Selective DES implantation in patients with high‐risk STEMI appears safe, and exposes fewer patients to the risk of LaST. A randomized comparison of selective versus routine DES use in patients with STEMI should be considered. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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

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

Efficacy and safety of a double‐coated paclitaxel‐eluting coronary stent: The EUCATAX trial

Objectives : The aim of this study was the comparison of a new double‐coated paclitaxel‐eluting coronary stent with bare‐metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background : Stent coating with biodegradable polymers as a platform for elution of drugs has the potential for complete elution of drugs and for decreasing the risk of late complications. Methods : Multicenter randomized trial comparing a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) coated with a biodegradable polymer and glycocalyx with the equivalent BMS. We randomly assigned 422 patients with de novo coronary lesions to PES (211 patients) or to BMS (211 patients). Primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Clinical secondary end points were target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis (ST), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Angiographic secondary end points were late loss and binary restenosis. Results : At 1 year of follow‐up, TVF rate was 9.5% in the PES group and 17.1% in the BMS group (P = 0.02), and MACE rate was 10% in PES and 19% in BMS arm (P = 0.009). All other secondary end points were reached but ST. ST rate was low and similar in both study arms. Conclusions : The study shows that patients treated with PES with dual coating technology had significantly lower incidence of TVF and MACE than those treated with BMS design; however, longer follow‐up should be necessary to assess true advantages of this technology compared with the previous one. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison between sirolimus‐ and paclitaxel‐eluting stents in complex patient and lesions subsets

Background : Sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) both significantly reduce the need for repeat intervention compared to bare metal stents. Studies comparing the clinical outcomes of these stents in noncomplex subsets of patients and lesions demonstrate a similar safety and efficacy profile. The data for more complex subsets of patients and lesions remains conflicting. This study aimed to compare SES with PES in a selected population with a broad range of complex features. Methods and Results : The patient population consisted of 1,591 consecutive patients with complex features undergoing drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation. In the SES group there were 1,095 patients (1,653 lesions) and in the PES group 496 patients (802 lesions). In‐hospital, 30‐day, and 12‐month clinical outcomes were compared between groups. No discernable difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between SES and PES was detected at intermediate and longer‐term follow‐up (SES 22.4% vs. PES 20.5% at 12 months; P = 0.407). A trend toward increased angiographically documented stent thrombosis was observed in the SES group at both 3 and 12 months (SES 2.2% vs. PES 0.8% at 12 months; P = 0.051). When adopting the more inclusive definition of probable stent thrombosis, this trend was no longer seen. After adjusting for baseline differences between the two groups, there still remained no difference in MACE between SES and PES (HR 1.051 [CI 0.826–1.339] P = 0.685). The trend toward increased angiographically documented stent thrombosis in the SES group remained after adjustment for baseline differences (HR 2.836 [CI 0.968–8.311] P = 0.057). Conclusions : In a selected population with complex disease the rate of MACE was comparable between SES and PES, with higher overall rates of thrombosis and MACE compared to a noncomplex population. Thus, the focus should be directed to prevent late complications in this complex subset regardless of stent type selection. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Clinical impact of sirolimus‐eluting stent in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: A meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials

Objectives: To evaluate outcome of patients undergoing sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) as compared to bare‐metal stent (BMS) implantation during primary angioplasty for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background: The role of SES in primary percutaneous coronary intervention setting is still debated. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, scientific session abstracts, and relevant Websites for studies in any language, from the inception of each database until October 2008. Only randomized clinical trials with a mean follow‐up period >6 months and sample size >100 patients were included. Primary endpoint for efficacy was target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) and primary endpoint for safety was stent thrombosis. Secondary endpoints were cardiac death and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI). Results: Six trials were included in the meta‐analysis, including 2,381 patients (1,192 randomized to SES and 1,189 to BMS). Up to 12‐month follow‐up, TVR was significantly lower in patients treated with SES as compared to patients treated with BMS (4.53% vs. 12.53%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24–0.46; P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of stent thrombosis (3.02% vs. 3.70%, OR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.52–1.27], P = 0.81), cardiac death (2.77% vs. 3.28%, OR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.52–1.35], P = 0.47), and recurrent MI (2.94% vs. 4.04%, OR = 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45–1.11], P = 0.13) between the two groups. Conclusion: SES significantly reduces TVR rates as compared to BMS in STEMI patients up to 1 year follow‐up. Further studies with larger population and longer follow‐up time are needed to confirm our findings. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison 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.     

Safety and effectiveness of drug eluting stent in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty

Background : Drug eluting stents (DES) have recently been proven to further reduce restenosis and revascularization rate in comparison to bare metal stents in elective procedures. Most early DES trials did not include patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST‐segment elevation MI, because these patients tend to have lower restenosis rates than other patient groups and delayed endothelization of these stents raises concern about a possible increase of thrombotic complications in the setting of STEMI. Aim : To confirm the safety and effectiveness of DES in patients with STEMI in a real‐world scenario. Methods : From January 2004 to December 2006, clinical and angiographic data of 370 patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI have been analyzed. Patients were retrospectively followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results : Overall, 120 patients received DES (32%, DES group) and 250 received bare metal stents (68%, BMS group) in the infarct related artery. Compared with the BMS group, DES patients were younger, (mean age 56 ± 12 vs. 65 ± 10; P < 0.001) had more often diabetes mellitus (47% vs. 14% P < 0.001), anterior localization (65% vs. 45%; P < 0.0011) and less cardiogenic shock at admission (4% vs. 7%; P < 0.001). The angiographic characteristics in the DES group showed longer lesions (23 mm vs. 19 mm) and smaller diameter of vessels (2.5 mm vs. 3.0 mm). After a median follow‐up of 24 ± 9 months, there was no significant difference in the rate of stent thrombosis (1.6% in the DES group vs. 1.2% in the BMS group, P = ns). The incidence of MACE was significantly lower in the DES group compared with the BMS group (HR 0.56 [95% CI: 0.3–0.8]; P = 0.01), principally due to the lower rate of TVR (HR 0.41 [95% CI: 0.2–0.85]; P = 0.01). Conclusions : Utilization of DES in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI, in our “real world,” was safe and improved the 3‐year clinical outcome compared with BMS reducing the need of TVR. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.     

Efficacy of everolimus eluting stent implantation in patients with calcified coronary culprit lesions: Two‐year angiographic and three‐year clinical results from the SPIRIT II study

Background : Little is known about the impact of treatment with drug‐eluting stents (DES) on calcified coronary lesions. This analysis sought to assess the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) in patients with calcified or noncalcified culprit lesions. Methods : The study population consisted of 212 patients with 247 lesions, who were treated with EES alone. Target lesions were angiographically classified as none/mild, moderate, or severe grades of calcification. The population was divided into two groups: those with at least one target lesion moderately or severely calcified (the calcified group: 68 patients with 75 calcified lesions) and those with all target lesions having mild or no calcification (the noncalcified group: 144 patients). Six‐month and 2‐year angiographic follow‐up and clinical follow‐up up to 3 years were completed. Results : The baseline characteristics were not significantly different between both groups. When compared with the noncalcified group, the calcified group had significantly higher rates of 6‐month in‐stent angiographic binary restenosis (ABR, 4.3% vs. 0%, P = 0.03) and ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization (ID‐TLR, 5.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.01), resulting in numerically higher major cardiac adverse events (MACE, 5.9% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.09). At 2 years, when compared with the noncalcified group, the calcified group presented higher in‐stent ABR (7.4% vs. 0%, P = 0.08) and ID‐TLR (7.8% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.03), resulting in numerically higher MACE (10.9% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.12). At 3 years, ID‐TLR tended to be higher in the calcified group than in the noncalcified group (8.6% vs. 2.4%, P = 0.11), resulting in numerically higher MACE (12.1% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.12). Conclusions: The MACE rates in patients treated with EES for calcified lesions were higher than in those for noncalcified lesions, but remained lower than the results of previously reported stent studies. EES implantation in patients with calcified culprit lesions was safe and associated with favorable reduction of restenosis and repeat revascularization. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of 2‐year clinical outcomes with sirolimus and paclitaxel‐eluting stents for patients with diabetes: Results of the Registro Regionale AngiopLastiche Emilia‐Romagna Registry

Background: Long‐term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) compared to paclitaxel‐eluting‐stents (PES) in unselected diabetics in routine practice is still debated. Objective: This study compared the 2‐year incidence of MACE (all‐cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization) of SES and PES in a real‐world setting of patients with diabetes. Design: Observational, multicenter, nonrandomized study. Setting: Prospective web‐based registry (REAL Registry; study period, 2002–2005) comprising all 13 hospitals performing PCI. Patients: Among the 945 eligible patients treated with either SES alone (n = 606) or PES alone (n = 339), 29% were insulin‐requiring, 72% had multivessel coronary disease, 26% had prior myocardial infarction and 10% had poor left ventricular function. Measurements: Unadjusted and propensity score‐adjusted 2‐year clinical outcome. Results: After propensity score adjustment, 2‐year MACE incidence in the SES and PES groups was equivalent (23.3% vs. 23.7%, HR 1.01, 95%CI 0.72–1.42, P = 0.96). Adjusted 2‐year angiographic stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% of the SES patients versus 2.6% of the PES patients (P = 0.15). In this large, real‐world, diabetic population treated with DES, there was no difference in outcome between SES and PES. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the long‐term safety of different types of DES in patients with diabetes. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol‐mandated angiographic follow‐up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug‐eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow‐up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow‐up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Clinical and angiographic outcomes with an everolimus‐eluting stent in large coronary arteries: The SPIRIT III 4.0 mm registry

Objective : This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V® 4.0 mm stent for the treatment of de novo native coronary artery lesions. Background : In the SPIRIT III trial, the XIENCE V® everolimus‐eluting stent (EES), compared with the TAXUS EXPRESS² paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) in 2.5–3.75 mm diameter coronary arteries, resulted in reduced angiographic late loss (LL), noninferior rates of target vessel failure (TVF), and fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Methods : The SPIRIT III 4.0 mm registry was a concurrent arm of the SPIRIT III trial consisting of 69 nonrandomized patients with lesions ≤28 mm in length and reference vessel diameter 3.75–4.25 mm treated with a 4.0 mm EES. The primary endpoint was 8‐month in‐segment LL compared with the randomized PES arm. Results : In‐segment LL was 0.17 ± 0.38 mm in the 4.0 mm EES registry compared with 0.28 ± 0.48 mm in the PES arm (P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). The 1‐year rates of ischemia‐driven TVF (cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], or target vessel revascularization) and MACE (cardiac death, MI, or target lesion revascularization [TLR]) were numerically, but not statistically, lower in the 4.0 mm EES patients compared with the randomized PES patients (5.9 vs. 11.3%, P = 0.27 and 5.9 vs. 10.3%, P = 0.36, respectively). There was no difference in 8‐month LL or 1‐year TVF or MACE between the 4.0 mm EES and randomized EES patients. Conclusions : In large coronary arteries, the 4.0 mm EES results in low rates of LL at 8 months and adverse clinical events at 1 year. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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

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

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.     

Decreased risk of stent fracture‐related restenosis between paclitaxel‐eluting stents and sirolimus eluting stents: Results of long‐term follow‐up

Objective: To compare the outcomes between paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) for the treatment of drug‐eluting stent (DES) fracture. Background: DES fracture is considered as an important predictor of in‐stent restenosis (ISR). However, little data are available evaluating the optimal treatment for this complication of coronary stenting. Methods: From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008, patients with DES ISR treated with a second DES were identified and evaluated for stent fracture. Stent fracture was defined by the presence of strut separation in multiple angiographic projections, assessed by two independent reviewers. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 6 and 12 months were the primary end points. Results: Of 131 lesions with DES ISR treated with a second DES, we found 24 patients (24 lesions, 18.2%) with angiographically confirmed stent fracture. Of these, 20 patients (20 lesions) treated with either PES (n = 11/55%) or SES (n = 9/45%) were included in the study. TLR at 6 months occurred in 9% of patients treated with PES and 22% of those treated with SES (P = 0.41). After 12 months, TLR was 9% and 55.5%, respectively (P = 0.024). Conclusions: This study demonstrates a high incidence of stent fracture in patients presenting with DES ISR in need of further treatment with another DES. The suggested association between treatment of stent fracture‐associated DES ISR with PES as compared with SES, and better long‐term outcomes, is in need of confirmation by larger prospective registries and randomized trials. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, 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   

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.